Re:Good for blizzard for enforcing it...
on
The Basics of EULAs
·
· Score: 1
I still remember when Blizzard made an official post in their forums telling that such godly plate of whale not only existed, but also claimed that people at Blizzard had found it playing the game!!!
>When you buy CDs you're buying the right to >listen to a copy of the music in digital form. >When you download, you're getting the copy of >the music in digital form without paying for the >right to listen to it.
It is not illegal to listen to something. You don't need permision from a copyright holder (of music) to listen to it (or from a writer to read a book or a programer to run a program). Use is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder, hence it has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright is about making new copies, distribution of copies and public performnace and so on. The issue of money or payment is a non issue (except for the possible different penalties and so on). Even if someone gives away their work for free, you are still infringing on their copyright if you make new copies. Similary, if I give a CD to a friend (with or without payment), there is no copyright infringement. You really should read more about copyright and the laws about it to understand it better.
>They would argue that currently they are losing >money from cheap imports so by region coding >they are not making money, just not losing it >anymore.
Yes, but then, the only reason for that would be that they, themselves, are selling at different prices in different markets. That is thier own fault and problem. So they basically don't want consumers to be able to buy werever theywant to. BUt I am sure, they as a company feel they should be allowed to for example manufacture and get labour at any place in the world, not having to be at the same place they sell in.
>Lets compare the ratio of copyright breaking >activities VS non copyright breaking activities >those protocols have and compare them with p2p's >ratio.
So you are saying that the share of people using your program in different way should decide if you are responsible or not and could go to jail? So if you make a program and most getting it do lawfull things, you are home safe, but if most of them turn out to do illegal things, you are suddenly guilty and can go to jail? If suddenly a whole lot of people started to do legal activities with the programs in question, would that suddenly make the creators not responsible any more?
The proposed law for P2P software is not about preventing the program for "accidently" starting to share and download stuff. It is to for taking action to actually prevent the sharing of files DESPITE the user wanting to do so. Nothing of the safeties on guns prevent someone from shoting if the person WANT to fire the gun.
>Since a long time actually. Practically all guns >have safeties on them for these purposes, >including a manual exterior safety, interior >firing-pin block safety (in cases of drops), >even grip safeties and trigger safeties.
None of that prevents the shooting of someone. It basically just prevent the gun firing without you wanting it to do so. That would be like preventing a P2P program to startup and sharing stuff itself when you don't want it.
>You didn't buy the CD.. only the right to >listen from the particular media in concern
Huh? Why would you need such a license to start with? There is no law forbidding listening to a CD hence you don't need any license to do it. Besides, as far as I know and have seen, almost any shop will actually sell you CDs. Sales are covered in sales law and the change of ownership is regulated.
>(otherwise they have to provide a new CD for >every broken one you send back, for the cost of >the media).
>No, Union law is above member state law (in most >cases). And Sweden have been fined for not >implementing the infococ directive.
There is no "Union law". There is a directive which member states should implement. It is still the law of each country that tells what is allowed or not. You can't drag someone into court using the directive. You can bring the country though, and it can be fined by EU for not implementing it though. So until the law of Sweden is changed, it won't affect the legality of acts done by someone in Sweden.
You might also want to know that this directive doesn't really cover software at all since that has allready been covered in the past in other directive AND implemented in Sweden. You might also be interested in knowing that in the proposed implementation for Sweden (at least the proposal I read last summer), there was a very sound reasoning that the circumvention only deal with protection that relates to rights of a copyright holder and copyright. Access for example is NOT such a right. Many such protections that people call "copy protection" or "copyright protection" is in fact not at all about copying but about access. You can often copy such CDs for example, it is access that it deals with. Such a thing is NOT protected. The text relating to the proposal for the new law specifically mention for example region coding on DVDs to not be protected at all since it is all about access and not copying or other rights to the copyright holder.
As for the case mentioned here (versus DOD) I really have not read or heared about it so can't tell anything about it more than that it has nothing to do with the directive in question.
>Why doesn't the same logic apply to breaking >into someone's copy-protected CD?
As allready pointed out, ownership of a copyright to a work and ownership to individual copies of the work is two completely different things. I can own a copy of a book (with work in the form of text in it) or a copy of a music CD (with work in the form of music, lyrics and performance of them on it), yet, someone else owns the copyrights to them. The copyright owner holds a few specific rights which is basically to create new copies of the work, the distribution of them and the performance. Anything else is NOT an exclusive right to the copyright owner. The owner of the specific copies can do pretty much anything else with them, just as with anything else you own. Specifically note that USE is not an exclusive right to the copyright owner.
Finally, also note that in most cases the CD will not be copy protected but rather access protected. You can copy it all fine, it is accessing it that is restricted. Access is, again, not a right that belongs to the copyright holder. The directive, by the way, really only mandates to prevent corcumvention of protection related to the copyright and the copyright owners rights, not any other general "rights" or "will" of the copyright holder. Of course, countries might decide to broaden it an also ban circumvention of other protections, that really have little to do with copyright though.
>You do not own 'Britney Spears - Toxic.mp3', and >you do not have a right to give it to other >people.
Lets see, yes, I have that file and hence own it!!! (well, lets assume I have it, I really don't). I don't hold the copyright to the content do. That is something completely different. Similary, I own the book here on the table beside me, yet I don't hold the copyright to it.
If I can give it away? Depends a bit. Distribution is a right of the copyright holder that is "consumed" after the first distribution. That is, they have the right to control it the first time, but not afterwards, hence, I can resell a book or music CD. I can't make a copy and then sell it (even assuming I would for other reasons be allowed to make such a copy).
>If you wanted to have that right, make your own >music, distribute that, but until then dont >think you have any rights to other peoples >intellectual property.
This is simply not true. The onlt rights that are exlusive to the copyright holder (and the exclusinvess usually have exceptions) are copying, distribution (lost after first distribution for each individual copy as mentioned above) and public performance (well there are a few others similar to these. That is it. All other "rights" are yours to do as you want. For example use is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder, hence you can use, read, run and so on books, CDs and computer programs all you want without needing any permission for it.
So you say that "you don't getting paied" is stealing? In what circumstances? As soon as someone listen to your music without paying? As soon as someone have and/or own a copy of your music and have not paid you? Some other strange definition? And then you say that since stealing is wrong when you don't get paid, all cases of copying were you doesn't get paid is also stealing?
By the way, what if I have a friend over at my house listening to your music? What if I give him my CD since I don't want it any more (or can borrow it or go to his house when I want to)? He has not paid you anything in any case, is he a thief?
If they do download to check out what the file really contain, what do they do if it doesn't match their clients content? Report themselves? After all, they have in the meantime not only downloaded but shared it themselves as well. Perhaps a competing company will report them. Or perhaps one get away downloading (and sharing in for exmple BT) by simply claiming it looked like my own content and I wanted to verify? Seems strange.
>The laws of the US and other countries would beg >to differ, like it or not.
Differ in what part? In everything I worte? Or just some? Could you please point to a law for example that forbid use? Could you please tell were in the copyright that use is given as an exclusive right to the copyright holder? And if so, how do you go about to get use permission to read all your books?
>it might not be that simple if yahoo claims they >are providing a service and all your message are >belong to them
That would require them to demand the copyright being transfered to them (and the sender losing it) for everything you send to their mailboxes (since it seems to deal with mail sent TO the yahoo mailbox, not from it). That hardly seems likely or even reasonable.
>go look up derivative works, and just how much >that restricts you.
Based on this and many other posts in this thread, you seem to have completely missunderstood what a derivate work is. Based on other posts, it seems the argumentation is based on US laws (although the story is about french law, but it should probably not differe much). In any case, here is a direct copy and paste from the US copyright law were it defines "derivate work":
----- A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". -----
So no, it is not a derivate work to use Office to create a word document, it is not a derivate work at all to use a tool or program to create something else. It is not a derivate work to find out how a program works and make your own exploit or example on it.
As allready pointed out to you, reverse engineering is the process and not the end result, so the "exploit" is not the reverse engineering but a result of it (which is not a derivate work).
In the original case, the copyright issue (or at least one of them) was a claim that the exploit also included code directly copied from the AV program in question. THAT would be the copyright infringement, not finding or making the exploit in itself.
In almost all cases software is sold like anything else so yes, when you walk out of the store you have bought and hence own a copy of the software. In addition, selling licenses for software is almost like selling licenses to breeth, not muc point. A license is something you need so you can do something you would otherwise not be allowed to (for example a driving license since laws says you can't drive cars if you don't have it). There is nothing forbidding use of software, hence you don't need any license for it.
>What may be unlawful in this case is that a >product was reverse-engineered to achieve that >effect, which may have broken applicable French >laws.
And how do you suppose said company managed to write their virus scanning program (or whatever it should be called) to start with? Guessing what viruses do? If blanket reverse engineering is not allowed, such a company should not be able to exist in France to start with.
Only until there is tougher laws pushed through that makes you go to jail for plugging in antennas unauthorized!! Circumventing the antenna plugin protecting paper should probably be a criminal act too!!
>Well, as long as you knew, or should reasonably >have known, that such a contract was involved in >the purchase, of certianly I'm fine with it.
Another thing that could be of importance, especially in a consumer case (were consumer sale laws would apply) is that some countries (many? I really don't know) doesn't allow for "unfair" contracts. Example of unfair contracts or parts of them would be to demand things not really related to the sale. For example to sell cars and demand that the person allow any employee to use the buyers house at will at any time (yes, extreme example, I know).
ALso, you really need to have the contract done at the time of sale, not just "could guess with accuracy about the existance of osmething to be agreed upon later. Perhaps that vary a lot with country though.
>and I'm all for legislation that requires EULAs >be made available before the purchase is made,
Yes, but isn't that really the case in most countries allready? We are dealing with sale laws, that, I would guess, in most countries requires anything to govern the sale to be agreed upon at the time of sale (and hence available before purchase)?
In addition, I would ask why one need EULA at all? Looking at them, a huge chunk is things that really allready apply due to existinbg laws, doesn't matter if you agree to them or not. Another chunk are things that really won't be enforcable even if you agree to it. An example would be the part that tells which law applies to a sale. One can't side step the law that way wanting another countriy's law apply and not the one were you do the sale. It is possible that in US it is possible to do it for which state law should apply, I really don't know, but I still doubt it. Another example is the attempt to get away from responsability or functionability of the program, agian, most (consumer)sale laws doens't allow that.
So we are left with the remainder, which is typically not THAT much but usually are things to restrict the buyer. But is it really needed? How come no other bussiness needs it? I can't see how software, music, book or any other such bussiness would be that different. Really.
>But I think one of the issues at play here is >that there are a number of 'things' that people >are 'used to buying', like music and software, >and now some vendors are trying to change it >from 'buying' to 'licensing'.
Yet they still continue to buy it normally! And want to treat it as something you own as soon as that is more suitable.
What we have (and what you talk about in the rest of your post) is a non consumer situation, companies or bussiness can of course do between them what is nessecary, but that is usually different from the final step which is getting it to the consumers. That is also why many countries for example have a consumer sale law that differs from the normal sale law which basically allows for any sort of agreement while the consumer one tries to prevent business from abuse consumers who rarely have as much power to put back so to speak.
>Yes, but the kinds of things that make contracts >void are very few indeed.
How about someone forcing you to agree to it so that you can use something you bought? Imagine next time you buy a TV, get how, and then find a piece of paper stuck on top of were to plug the antenna in. It says that by removing the piece of paper you agree that the TV is not yours, that they can come and pick it back whenever they want, and that they WILL do it if you watch channels that are not theirs or try to figure out how it works in any way and so on...
Slashdot Mirror
I still remember when Blizzard made an official post in their forums telling that such godly plate of whale not only existed, but also claimed that people at Blizzard had found it playing the game!!!
>When you buy CDs you're buying the right to
>listen to a copy of the music in digital form.
>When you download, you're getting the copy of
>the music in digital form without paying for the
>right to listen to it.
It is not illegal to listen to something. You don't need permision from a copyright holder (of music) to listen to it (or from a writer to read a book or a programer to run a program). Use is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder, hence it has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright is about making new copies, distribution of copies and public performnace and so on. The issue of money or payment is a non issue (except for the possible different penalties and so on). Even if someone gives away their work for free, you are still infringing on their copyright if you make new copies. Similary, if I give a CD to a friend (with or without payment), there is no copyright infringement. You really should read more about copyright and the laws about it to understand it better.
>They would argue that currently they are losing
>money from cheap imports so by region coding
>they are not making money, just not losing it
>anymore.
Yes, but then, the only reason for that would be that they, themselves, are selling at different prices in different markets. That is thier own fault and problem. So they basically don't want consumers to be able to buy werever theywant to. BUt I am sure, they as a company feel they should be allowed to for example manufacture and get labour at any place in the world, not having to be at the same place they sell in.
>Lets compare the ratio of copyright breaking
>activities VS non copyright breaking activities
>those protocols have and compare them with p2p's
>ratio.
So you are saying that the share of people using your program in different way should decide if you are responsible or not and could go to jail? So if you make a program and most getting it do lawfull things, you are home safe, but if most of them turn out to do illegal things, you are suddenly guilty and can go to jail? If suddenly a whole lot of people started to do legal activities with the programs in question, would that suddenly make the creators not responsible any more?
The proposed law for P2P software is not about preventing the program for "accidently" starting to share and download stuff. It is to for taking action to actually prevent the sharing of files DESPITE the user wanting to do so. Nothing of the safeties on guns prevent someone from shoting if the person WANT to fire the gun.
>Since a long time actually. Practically all guns
>have safeties on them for these purposes,
>including a manual exterior safety, interior
>firing-pin block safety (in cases of drops),
>even grip safeties and trigger safeties.
None of that prevents the shooting of someone. It basically just prevent the gun firing without you wanting it to do so. That would be like preventing a P2P program to startup and sharing stuff itself when you don't want it.
>You didn't buy the CD .. only the right to
>listen from the particular media in concern
Huh? Why would you need such a license to start with? There is no law forbidding listening to a CD hence you don't need any license to do it. Besides, as far as I know and have seen, almost any shop will actually sell you CDs. Sales are covered in sales law and the change of ownership is regulated.
>(otherwise they have to provide a new CD for
>every broken one you send back, for the cost of
>the media).
Why on earth would they have to do that?????
>For software, it's even worse
No it isn't, it is the exact same thing.
Do you have any link to that ruling? Yes I read Swedish as well.
>No, Union law is above member state law (in most
>cases). And Sweden have been fined for not
>implementing the infococ directive.
There is no "Union law". There is a directive which member states should implement. It is still the law of each country that tells what is allowed or not. You can't drag someone into court using the directive. You can bring the country though, and it can be fined by EU for not implementing it though. So until the law of Sweden is changed, it won't affect the legality of acts done by someone in Sweden.
You might also want to know that this directive doesn't really cover software at all since that has allready been covered in the past in other directive AND implemented in Sweden. You might also be interested in knowing that in the proposed implementation for Sweden (at least the proposal I read last summer), there was a very sound reasoning that the circumvention only deal with protection that relates to rights of a copyright holder and copyright. Access for example is NOT such a right. Many such protections that people call "copy protection" or "copyright protection" is in fact not at all about copying but about access. You can often copy such CDs for example, it is access that it deals with. Such a thing is NOT protected. The text relating to the proposal for the new law specifically mention for example region coding on DVDs to not be protected at all since it is all about access and not copying or other rights to the copyright holder.
As for the case mentioned here (versus DOD) I really have not read or heared about it so can't tell anything about it more than that it has nothing to do with the directive in question.
>Why doesn't the same logic apply to breaking
>into someone's copy-protected CD?
As allready pointed out, ownership of a copyright to a work and ownership to individual copies of the work is two completely different things. I can own a copy of a book (with work in the form of text in it) or a copy of a music CD (with work in the form of music, lyrics and performance of them on it), yet, someone else owns the copyrights to them. The copyright owner holds a few specific rights which is basically to create new copies of the work, the distribution of them and the performance. Anything else is NOT an exclusive right to the copyright owner. The owner of the specific copies can do pretty much anything else with them, just as with anything else you own. Specifically note that USE is not an exclusive right to the copyright owner.
Finally, also note that in most cases the CD will not be copy protected but rather access protected. You can copy it all fine, it is accessing it that is restricted. Access is, again, not a right that belongs to the copyright holder. The directive, by the way, really only mandates to prevent corcumvention of protection related to the copyright and the copyright owners rights, not any other general "rights" or "will" of the copyright holder. Of course, countries might decide to broaden it an also ban circumvention of other protections, that really have little to do with copyright though.
>You do not own 'Britney Spears - Toxic.mp3', and
>you do not have a right to give it to other
>people.
Lets see, yes, I have that file and hence own it!!! (well, lets assume I have it, I really don't). I don't hold the copyright to the content do. That is something completely different. Similary, I own the book here on the table beside me, yet I don't hold the copyright to it.
If I can give it away? Depends a bit. Distribution is a right of the copyright holder that is "consumed" after the first distribution. That is, they have the right to control it the first time, but not afterwards, hence, I can resell a book or music CD. I can't make a copy and then sell it (even assuming I would for other reasons be allowed to make such a copy).
>If you wanted to have that right, make your own
>music, distribute that, but until then dont
>think you have any rights to other peoples
>intellectual property.
This is simply not true. The onlt rights that are exlusive to the copyright holder (and the exclusinvess usually have exceptions) are copying, distribution (lost after first distribution for each individual copy as mentioned above) and public performance (well there are a few others similar to these. That is it. All other "rights" are yours to do as you want. For example use is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder, hence you can use, read, run and so on books, CDs and computer programs all you want without needing any permission for it.
And if you lost your key? Or for computers, can't remember it?
So you say that "you don't getting paied" is stealing? In what circumstances? As soon as someone listen to your music without paying? As soon as someone have and/or own a copy of your music and have not paid you? Some other strange definition? And then you say that since stealing is wrong when you don't get paid, all cases of copying were you doesn't get paid is also stealing?
By the way, what if I have a friend over at my house listening to your music? What if I give him my CD since I don't want it any more (or can borrow it or go to his house when I want to)? He has not paid you anything in any case, is he a thief?
Until the file turnes out NOT to belong to their clients but was something completely different...
If they do download to check out what the file really contain, what do they do if it doesn't match their clients content? Report themselves? After all, they have in the meantime not only downloaded but shared it themselves as well. Perhaps a competing company will report them. Or perhaps one get away downloading (and sharing in for exmple BT) by simply claiming it looked like my own content and I wanted to verify? Seems strange.
>The laws of the US and other countries would beg
>to differ, like it or not.
Differ in what part? In everything I worte? Or just some? Could you please point to a law for example that forbid use? Could you please tell were in the copyright that use is given as an exclusive right to the copyright holder? And if so, how do you go about to get use permission to read all your books?
Acording to the article, the issue WAS copyright.
>it might not be that simple if yahoo claims they
>are providing a service and all your message are
>belong to them
That would require them to demand the copyright being transfered to them (and the sender losing it) for everything you send to their mailboxes (since it seems to deal with mail sent TO the yahoo mailbox, not from it). That hardly seems likely or even reasonable.
>go look up derivative works, and just how much
>that restricts you.
Based on this and many other posts in this thread, you seem to have completely missunderstood what a derivate work is. Based on other posts, it seems the argumentation is based on US laws (although the story is about french law, but it should probably not differe much). In any case, here is a direct copy and paste from the US copyright law were it defines "derivate work":
-----
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
-----
So no, it is not a derivate work to use Office to create a word document, it is not a derivate work at all to use a tool or program to create something else. It is not a derivate work to find out how a program works and make your own exploit or example on it.
As allready pointed out to you, reverse engineering is the process and not the end result, so the "exploit" is not the reverse engineering but a result of it (which is not a derivate work).
In the original case, the copyright issue (or at least one of them) was a claim that the exploit also included code directly copied from the AV program in question. THAT would be the copyright infringement, not finding or making the exploit in itself.
In almost all cases software is sold like anything else so yes, when you walk out of the store you have bought and hence own a copy of the software. In addition, selling licenses for software is almost like selling licenses to breeth, not muc point. A license is something you need so you can do something you would otherwise not be allowed to (for example a driving license since laws says you can't drive cars if you don't have it). There is nothing forbidding use of software, hence you don't need any license for it.
That was my point and why EULA would not work.
>What may be unlawful in this case is that a
>product was reverse-engineered to achieve that
>effect, which may have broken applicable French
>laws.
And how do you suppose said company managed to write their virus scanning program (or whatever it should be called) to start with? Guessing what viruses do? If blanket reverse engineering is not allowed, such a company should not be able to exist in France to start with.
Only until there is tougher laws pushed through that makes you go to jail for plugging in antennas unauthorized!! Circumventing the antenna plugin protecting paper should probably be a criminal act too!!
>Well, as long as you knew, or should reasonably
>have known, that such a contract was involved in
>the purchase, of certianly I'm fine with it.
Another thing that could be of importance, especially in a consumer case (were consumer sale laws would apply) is that some countries (many? I really don't know) doesn't allow for "unfair" contracts. Example of unfair contracts or parts of them would be to demand things not really related to the sale. For example to sell cars and demand that the person allow any employee to use the buyers house at will at any time (yes, extreme example, I know).
ALso, you really need to have the contract done at the time of sale, not just "could guess with accuracy about the existance of osmething to be agreed upon later. Perhaps that vary a lot with country though.
>and I'm all for legislation that requires EULAs
>be made available before the purchase is made,
Yes, but isn't that really the case in most countries allready? We are dealing with sale laws, that, I would guess, in most countries requires anything to govern the sale to be agreed upon at the time of sale (and hence available before purchase)?
In addition, I would ask why one need EULA at all? Looking at them, a huge chunk is things that really allready apply due to existinbg laws, doesn't matter if you agree to them or not. Another chunk are things that really won't be enforcable even if you agree to it. An example would be the part that tells which law applies to a sale. One can't side step the law that way wanting another countriy's law apply and not the one were you do the sale. It is possible that in US it is possible to do it for which state law should apply, I really don't know, but I still doubt it. Another example is the attempt to get away from responsability or functionability of the program, agian, most (consumer)sale laws doens't allow that.
So we are left with the remainder, which is typically not THAT much but usually are things to restrict the buyer. But is it really needed? How come no other bussiness needs it? I can't see how software, music, book or any other such bussiness would be that different. Really.
>But I think one of the issues at play here is
>that there are a number of 'things' that people
>are 'used to buying', like music and software,
>and now some vendors are trying to change it
>from 'buying' to 'licensing'.
Yet they still continue to buy it normally! And want to treat it as something you own as soon as that is more suitable.
What we have (and what you talk about in the rest of your post) is a non consumer situation, companies or bussiness can of course do between them what is nessecary, but that is usually different from the final step which is getting it to the consumers. That is also why many countries for example have a consumer sale law that differs from the normal sale law which basically allows for any sort of agreement while the consumer one tries to prevent business from abuse consumers who rarely have as much power to put back so to speak.
>Yes, but the kinds of things that make contracts
>void are very few indeed.
How about someone forcing you to agree to it so that you can use something you bought? Imagine next time you buy a TV, get how, and then find a piece of paper stuck on top of were to plug the antenna in. It says that by removing the piece of paper you agree that the TV is not yours, that they can come and pick it back whenever they want, and that they WILL do it if you watch channels that are not theirs or try to figure out how it works in any way and so on...