>A contract is not limited to mere usage. I claim >that EULAs and the GPL are similar in that they >both require acceptance of the license before >the permission specified within are granted.
Out of curiosity, what rights would the typical EULA in your opinion give that you don't otherwise have. Typically they want to give an impression that due to copyright issues, you need some permissopn to use the software. There is no such need to get a permision, copyright does not give use as an exclusive right to a copyright holder. Since distribution and copying (apart from copying in the computer when you run the program which most copyright laws actually don't consider a copyright infringement), there is no need for any permision for those rights either for a typical user. So what in an EULA do you actually NEED?
>If someone else derives monies or rewards from >that work, without the copyright owners >permission, he has unlawfully violated the >copyright owners rights
Not at all. Copyright infringement happens when one do one of the actions that the copyright holder is granted as an exclusive right. The mains ones are copying, distribution and public performance. Making money is NOT such a right given (it do often factor in in the graveness and penalty of the infringement though).
>No. I think you are confused by that. The text >isn't an arrangement of ink on a piece of paper, >nor is it a pattern of holes in the metal film >in a CD, nor is it the waves of air pressure >between mouth and ear as I read the book to a >child. The text is an idea. It only exists as >intellectual property, it has no physical form.
First of all, one can't get copyright on ideas. The text is not an idea either, it is a specific expression of an idea. THAT is what you can get copyright on.
From US copyright law, section 102:
"(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work"
Next, for you to actually get the copyright, you actually need to put it into a tangible, physical, form, so you can't just have it in your head or something.
From the same section of US copyright law as above:
"(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: "
So what you have is a work that you get copyright on (this is the intangible part, the actual text which can then be fixated into various ways in physical form. This is the "text" in your case. We then have the various physical copies made which is for example the CD or whatever you buy (that holds the text), these, like any physical object is covered by normal laws of, for example ownership.
The copyright give the holder of the copyright certain rights about this "text", which includes copying (creation of new physical properties with the text in/on), distribution of them and public performance of the text. It does not really give any ownership to the non physical text, only some rights to a few things only the copyright holder can do.
Since creation of (physical copies) copies with the text is an excluive right to the copyright holder, only he can create them. As with basically all physical properties, whoever creates them, owns them. Same here. After that, one can distribute them (for example sell them). The copyright state that such distribution of copies is also the exclusive right of the copyright holder. However, only for the "first sale", after that, he loses the right to a particular copy which is why you can resell a book or a music CD you have bought.
So, when someone sell you a physical copy of a CD with music or software or a book with text, it is like selling any other property, there is no real difference. Copyright is really not even an issue. The buyer becomes the owner of it now. The ownership of the copyright to the actual text does not follow with the physical copies of course.
So, yes, one do indeed own that particualar copy, but one doesn't hold the copyright. Holding the copyright to the text though is not the same as "owning" the text, since owning implies all that normally apply to physical property, which is very different here since it is a non physical thing. As mentioned above, copyright laws does not give ownership, it gives a exclusive right to a few actions and that is ALL.
The copyright law is quite specific about the difference between the copyright of the work and its ownership and the the individual copies and their ownership, they are not the same, see for example section 109 of the US copyright law (which deals the with loss of distribution rights, typically called first sale doctrine):
"(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is en
So what DID you mean by IP? We were discussing copyright issues. Do you want to add in patents and trademarks as well? Fine, none really changes anything though. Despite someone else holding the copyright, the trademark and patents on thing, you can still own a specific copy (in our case a game).
>I feel for you man... but your problem is that >you consider the ability to play Doom3 (or >whatever game) a right rather than a privelege. >They make they game, so they can do whatever the >hell they want with it, including making you dip >your balls in peanutbutter and have your dog >lick it off before playing the game.
This is valid only until they start selling their game. When they sell copies of their game, they lose any control over those specific copies except as regulated through copyright law (since they remain copyright holder). USE (as in playing or running the game) is not such a right, hence they can't control it.
The reason you can't show them in public is NOT because of the FBI warning, it is because the LAW (copyright laws) says that is a right exclusive to the copyright holder. Hence you can't do it without a permision or license. Showing it at home (in private) is not such a right exclusive to the copyright holder so you are free to do so. The point of the FBI warning is simply to remind you of the law itself. It doesn't add additional contracts.
You only need a license when you want to do one of the relatively few rights that belongs to the copyright holder. They are basically making copies, distributing the copies (first distribution only, redistribution after that is usually not restricted) and public performance. There are some other things to. That is it. That is the ONLY things you need a license or permission to do. Everything else is allowed. So once you have bought a specific copy, it is yours to use and do with as with any other things you buy as long as you don't do any of the things that are exclusive rights to the copyright holder. Hence, you don't need an EULA at all (unless you want to make public performace or showings of it or make new copies to distribute and so on).
>Just to play Devil's advocate... If I own the >copyright to a song, and I specify that you may >only sing it while jumping up and down and >patting your head, those are my terms.
You can't dictate such terms, the copyright law does not give you an exclusive right on how to use something. The only terms you can dictate are the ones regulating copyring, distribution, public performanace and other rights belonging to the copyright holder. Of course, you can make additional agreements with someone that he should jump up and down, but if he refuses to make such an agreement, there is really no loss.
>You own a CONDITIONAL right to USE a copy of the >game.
I don't even NEED such a right since copyright law doesn't give "use" as an exclusive right to a copyright holder, hance anyone is allowed to use it. What you are not allowed to do is for example make additional copies or distribute them.
It is really not an issue of copyright at all but normal sales. You buy something (a specific copy of a work) and you own it. Copyright is not even an issue.
What won't hold up? That if you enter a store and buy somehintg, you won't own it? Normal sale laws apply. It is, works, looks and smells like a purchace, hence it is. If one want to sell something and make sure part of it is not sold, then one have to add additional agreements to the sale when one is selling in the shop. It is quite simple really. The fact that there might be some content with copyright to it does not change anything at all. You obviously don't buy the coyright as well, but you do buy a specific copy of the work. DOn't confuse those two and mix them up, one does not imply the other.
You are a bit unclear. What exactly do you mean by "owning the text"? I think you confuse holding (owning) the copyright to a text and owning a specific copy the text.
WHen you buy a book or music or software or whatever, you buy (and then own) that specific copy of the work. You do not of ocurse get to own the copyright to it.
>No, you picked a box with a CD in it off the >shelf and bought it. The game is the IP of the >software company.
I assume you mean the software company holds the copyright on the game. No one is arguing anything else. No one is arguing that they own the copyright by buying something. What happens is that you buy a specific (physical) copy of the work. Thus you own that specific copy of the work. Someone else can still hold the copyright to it (and usually do). It is two very different issues but somehow people tend to mix them up.
Why would you have to pay that much for a copy of the game? You are confusing owning specific copies of the game with holding the copyright to it. Buying the copyright might cost that much. Owning specific copies and holding (owning) the copyright is very different
>Have you ever slept in a hotel ? Well it's the >same thing. You pay to have a right to sleep in >a room, but the hotel is not yours.
That is because I enter the hotel and ask to rent a room for a night. There is no shop were they sell rooms.
>Oh it does, you own the box and the disk - he >was talking about the software ON the disk. > >Face it, the idiot populace let the creeps get >away with it.
I know he was not talking about the software. I was though. When you buy software, you will indeed own that specific copy of the software ON the disc (this is of course different from holding the copyright to it)
Well, yes I will own one specific copy of the story. I won't hold the copyright on the story of course, but that has nothing to do with owning specific copies of it.
>You are new to this whole intelectual property >thing, arn't you?
No, not at all. Especially not copyright. By the way, what do you mean apart from copyright with "intellectual property"? We were discussing copyright so if you want to add in other stuff, then tell what so I know.
>Yes, you just bought a box with some media in >it.. you own the box and the media. You do not >own what is on the media but luckily the box >comes with a license for usign it.
No, when you buy something you get it all. Why would you not? In this case, you buy (apart from the box and so on) one copy (the material object onto whoch a work is fixated). That copy is yours, you own it. Don't confuise this with holding the copyright to the work, you don't, but you DO own one copy of the content.
Most copuntries also consider such copies nessecary to run software to not be infringing anyway. For example, in US, this is covered in section 117 of the copyright law:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1)
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
Other countries have similar situation. So yes, such copies are OK to make.
>Where's the problem with this? They didn't >install it on your machine (contrary to your >analogy), it denies access only to things the >copyright holder (and intellectual property >owner) doesn't want you to access (which is a >legal right, by the way).
Actually access is NOT a typical right under normal copyright laws. It has been added as a sort of new right in some countries through DMCA (or similar) legislation though. However, it is NOT a new right given to the copyright holder, instead there is typically a ban on circumventing access protection. So access in itself is actually NOT a protected right for a copyright holder.
For a list of (almost) exclusive rights a copyright holder is given, check the copyright law of your own country. It typically will be the same for most countries though.
>I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you >don't own the games you buy. You own a license >to use those games. Big difference.
Lets see, I enter a store, pick up some product or merchendice, pay for it and leave the shop. Do I own what I just bought? Yup! Typically regulated through sale or consumer sale laws in most countries. Why you would think sale laws doesn't apply to computer games is beyoned me.
Easy, it works by giving you an additional right (redistribution for example) that you do not normally have and which belongs to the copyright holder. To get that you need to agree to the GPL. If you don't want or need that extended rights, you can simply ignore the GPL.
>The grandparent poster was correct: copyright >law in the US (which brings contract law to >bear) permits the copyright owner a hell of a >lot of leeway in making demands on the user-- >there are limits, but they're waaaay out there.
Ehh, would you mind pointing out what part of copyright laws that gives the copyright holder such "rights" to make demands? Copyright gives the copyright owner some specific rights, all of which mentioned in the copyright law. That is it. Nothing else. The basic ones deals with copying, distribution, public performance and so on. Note that USE is not such a right. DMCA do change it a bit since it adds access (and hence use) use for circumvention.
If anyone wants to make additional contracts or restrictions on something they sell, they can always do it, it really have nothing to do with copyright laws though (but contract laws as you mentioned). I admit I don't know the american contract laws much (as oposed to copyright laws), only know those of my own country. But I would be surprised if there isn't anything in the laws regulating consumer sales and at least some sort of deal about unfair contrcts for example or things that simply can't be put into a contract and so on.
>That's because it's a license agreement: as your >end of a contract, you agree to accept MS's >conditions, while they fulfill their end of the >contract by allowing you to use their software.
Huh? You don't need any contract or licencse to use software. Use is not one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder (see copyright law).
Yup, regulations set up by agreements by the joint travel agensies group (not sure about correct english word, but most travel angencies are members) and a govermental part dealing with consumer issues in Sweden (Konsumentverket)
*checks regulations for possible sea travel tickt to buy*
Yup, travel regulations include international treaties for sea transport of passangers.
Re:Where do you draw the line?
on
The Spyware Inferno
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
For airline and train travels and such, those agreements are typically made between some sort of organization representing those selling travels and some goverment or consumer organization. It is standard agreements that would apply to everyone selling airline travels for example and thus an individual airline can't add extra parts (like we don't do engine maintenance so tough luck if we crash).
As for software, I can see the "two separate" contracts, and of course that is not a problem, the problem is that it is a contract forced onto you AFTER you allready bought the software. If the contracts (both between shop and software compnay) were done befre the purchase, it would be another matter, now it is done after you allready bought and own a copy of the software and at that point, someone else can't force you to agree to a contract just because you want to use what you bought.
Having the contracts agreed at time of purchase is not a problöem or uncommon. When you buy a cell phone, it is not uncommon that the deal is sponsored by a company that handle the phone calls. So you also sign up with them for a year or something. However, those deals are always done, signed, agreed and so on in the shop before you buy the phone. You never see someone selling you a phone for $1 and thwn when you get home and try to use it, you are shown a contract that you can only use it when calling through company X and at specific costs and so on.
That is how software sales should be set up IF there is a need for additional contracts as part of the sale. It is worth mentioning that a huge part of many EULA are actually not needed at all since it is allready part of laws (for example copyright laws). Other parts are unenforcable anyway (depending on country and laws). The actual additional agreement is usually not that much and almpst always restrictions on what the buyer can do.
If someone deprives you of capital (your TV) because you didn't take measures to protect it (a door and lock) it will get stolen evetually. Likewise if you don't protect your capital (your software product) with some means (CD key, etc.) it will get stolen.
Gee, so you mean if someone infringes your copyright (since you did not protect it) you end up not having your software any more?
A software pirate is stealing the developers time and effort. Even if 80% of pirates never intended to buy the software in the first place the developer is still out the money from the remaining 20% who are simply cheapskates.
Ahh, so someone stole TIME? You end up losing time? Were did it go and since when can time be illegal to steal? And since when is depriving someone of profit illegal?
You DO reaslise that copyright infringement is not illegal due to any profit, time or whatever is lost (or stolen or whatever) right? Since none of those activities are illegal. Or do you consider it illegal to give a way a book you allready read since it is also stealing in the exact same way. The illegal activity for copyright infringement is the act of copying itself. It is further for the most cases illegal regardless of if you lost some revenue or development time or whatever.
No, people equate theft with mass copyright infringement, like putting cds on p2p programs and trading hacked software. We could argue the numbers all day, but some people, when they want a cd or a game etc, they DO download a pirated version of whatever. Essentially it is theft, perhaps not the "proper" textbook version of theft, but copies being available online does take away some money from companies, as there would of been a few, in the minimum, who would of bought the game/cd if it wasn't available on-line.
No one is arguing that copyright violation is NOT illegal, people are arguing that calling it theft (and stealing) is very bad and wrong. Why should one not call it the proper way? You don't see people screaming it is murder when someone breaks into your house and then when they claim it was not murder but someone breaking into your house you claim, "hey, both are illegal so what are you complaining about"?
Calling it stealing makes you think and draw other similarities to normal theft which is about physical properties and then you end up all wrong in much. Trying to make some similarity to "stolen revenue" and that they lost possible income is equal wrong since none is illegal to start with, you can't steal possible revenue. By such reasoning one soon end up thinking that me, giving (or selling) an old book I no longer want is also stealing since I would in the same way take away revenue from the company. If everyone accept the "stealing" analogy and if everyone call it that way, people will also draw the conclusion that my example is also illegal since I "stole" as well.
The illegal activity for copyright infringement is usually the act of copying itself and the distribution of such copies. THAT is what is illegal, nothing else. The money part has nothing to do with the illegalness (although the penalty can be affected about involvement of money).
So why not call it the proper way, copyright infringement instead of saying "it is stealing" and simply implying and want people to draw the same conclusions as you do with theft of physical property?
Slashdot Mirror
>A contract is not limited to mere usage. I claim
>that EULAs and the GPL are similar in that they
>both require acceptance of the license before
>the permission specified within are granted.
Out of curiosity, what rights would the typical EULA in your opinion give that you don't otherwise have. Typically they want to give an impression that due to copyright issues, you need some permissopn to use the software. There is no such need to get a permision, copyright does not give use as an exclusive right to a copyright holder. Since distribution and copying (apart from copying in the computer when you run the program which most copyright laws actually don't consider a copyright infringement), there is no need for any permision for those rights either for a typical user. So what in an EULA do you actually NEED?
>If someone else derives monies or rewards from
>that work, without the copyright owners
>permission, he has unlawfully violated the
>copyright owners rights
Not at all. Copyright infringement happens when one do one of the actions that the copyright holder is granted as an exclusive right. The mains ones are copying, distribution and public performance. Making money is NOT such a right given (it do often factor in in the graveness and penalty of the infringement though).
>No. I think you are confused by that. The text
>isn't an arrangement of ink on a piece of paper,
>nor is it a pattern of holes in the metal film
>in a CD, nor is it the waves of air pressure
>between mouth and ear as I read the book to a
>child. The text is an idea. It only exists as
>intellectual property, it has no physical form.
First of all, one can't get copyright on ideas. The text is not an idea either, it is a specific expression of an idea. THAT is what you can get copyright on.
From US copyright law, section 102:
"(b)
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work"
Next, for you to actually get the copyright, you actually need to put it into a tangible, physical, form, so you can't just have it in your head or something.
From the same section of US copyright law as above:
"(a)
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: "
So what you have is a work that you get copyright on (this is the intangible part, the actual text which can then be fixated into various ways in physical form. This is the "text" in your case. We then have the various physical copies made which is for example the CD or whatever you buy (that holds the text), these, like any physical object is covered by normal laws of, for example ownership.
The copyright give the holder of the copyright certain rights about this "text", which includes copying (creation of new physical properties with the text in/on), distribution of them and public performance of the text. It does not really give any ownership to the non physical text, only some rights to a few things only the copyright holder can do.
Since creation of (physical copies) copies with the text is an excluive right to the copyright holder, only he can create them. As with basically all physical properties, whoever creates them, owns them. Same here. After that, one can distribute them (for example sell them). The copyright state that such distribution of copies is also the exclusive right of the copyright holder. However, only for the "first sale", after that, he loses the right to a particular copy which is why you can resell a book or a music CD you have bought.
So, when someone sell you a physical copy of a CD with music or software or a book with text, it is like selling any other property, there is no real difference. Copyright is really not even an issue. The buyer becomes the owner of it now. The ownership of the copyright to the actual text does not follow with the physical copies of course.
So, yes, one do indeed own that particualar copy, but one doesn't hold the copyright. Holding the copyright to the text though is not the same as "owning" the text, since owning implies all that normally apply to physical property, which is very different here since it is a non physical thing. As mentioned above, copyright laws does not give ownership, it gives a exclusive right to a few actions and that is ALL.
The copyright law is quite specific about the difference between the copyright of the work and its ownership and the the individual copies and their ownership, they are not the same, see for example section 109 of the US copyright law (which deals the with loss of distribution rights, typically called first sale doctrine):
"(a)
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is en
So what DID you mean by IP? We were discussing copyright issues. Do you want to add in patents and trademarks as well? Fine, none really changes anything though. Despite someone else holding the copyright, the trademark and patents on thing, you can still own a specific copy (in our case a game).
>I feel for you man... but your problem is that
>you consider the ability to play Doom3 (or
>whatever game) a right rather than a privelege.
>They make they game, so they can do whatever the
>hell they want with it, including making you dip
>your balls in peanutbutter and have your dog
>lick it off before playing the game.
This is valid only until they start selling their game. When they sell copies of their game, they lose any control over those specific copies except as regulated through copyright law (since they remain copyright holder). USE (as in playing or running the game) is not such a right, hence they can't control it.
The reason you can't show them in public is NOT because of the FBI warning, it is because the LAW (copyright laws) says that is a right exclusive to the copyright holder. Hence you can't do it without a permision or license. Showing it at home (in private) is not such a right exclusive to the copyright holder so you are free to do so. The point of the FBI warning is simply to remind you of the law itself. It doesn't add additional contracts.
You only need a license when you want to do one of the relatively few rights that belongs to the copyright holder. They are basically making copies, distributing the copies (first distribution only, redistribution after that is usually not restricted) and public performance. There are some other things to. That is it. That is the ONLY things you need a license or permission to do. Everything else is allowed. So once you have bought a specific copy, it is yours to use and do with as with any other things you buy as long as you don't do any of the things that are exclusive rights to the copyright holder. Hence, you don't need an EULA at all (unless you want to make public performace or showings of it or make new copies to distribute and so on).
>Just to play Devil's advocate... If I own the
>copyright to a song, and I specify that you may
>only sing it while jumping up and down and
>patting your head, those are my terms.
You can't dictate such terms, the copyright law does not give you an exclusive right on how to use something. The only terms you can dictate are the ones regulating copyring, distribution, public performanace and other rights belonging to the copyright holder. Of course, you can make additional agreements with someone that he should jump up and down, but if he refuses to make such an agreement, there is really no loss.
>You own a CONDITIONAL right to USE a copy of the
>game.
I don't even NEED such a right since copyright law doesn't give "use" as an exclusive right to a copyright holder, hance anyone is allowed to use it. What you are not allowed to do is for example make additional copies or distribute them.
It is really not an issue of copyright at all but normal sales. You buy something (a specific copy of a work) and you own it. Copyright is not even an issue.
What won't hold up? That if you enter a store and buy somehintg, you won't own it? Normal sale laws apply. It is, works, looks and smells like a purchace, hence it is. If one want to sell something and make sure part of it is not sold, then one have to add additional agreements to the sale when one is selling in the shop. It is quite simple really. The fact that there might be some content with copyright to it does not change anything at all. You obviously don't buy the coyright as well, but you do buy a specific copy of the work. DOn't confuse those two and mix them up, one does not imply the other.
>I said you own the book, but not the text.
You are a bit unclear. What exactly do you mean by "owning the text"? I think you confuse holding (owning) the copyright to a text and owning a specific copy the text.
WHen you buy a book or music or software or whatever, you buy (and then own) that specific copy of the work. You do not of ocurse get to own the copyright to it.
>No, you picked a box with a CD in it off the
>shelf and bought it. The game is the IP of the
>software company.
I assume you mean the software company holds the copyright on the game. No one is arguing anything else. No one is arguing that they own the copyright by buying something. What happens is that you buy a specific (physical) copy of the work. Thus you own that specific copy of the work. Someone else can still hold the copyright to it (and usually do). It is two very different issues but somehow people tend to mix them up.
>Because you pay $40 for a game. Not $800,000.
Why would you have to pay that much for a copy of the game? You are confusing owning specific copies of the game with holding the copyright to it. Buying the copyright might cost that much. Owning specific copies and holding (owning) the copyright is very different
>Have you ever slept in a hotel ? Well it's the
>same thing. You pay to have a right to sleep in
>a room, but the hotel is not yours.
That is because I enter the hotel and ask to rent a room for a night. There is no shop were they sell rooms.
>Oh it does, you own the box and the disk - he
>was talking about the software ON the disk.
>
>Face it, the idiot populace let the creeps get
>away with it.
I know he was not talking about the software. I was though. When you buy software, you will indeed own that specific copy of the software ON the disc (this is of course different from holding the copyright to it)
>If you buy a book do you own the story?
Well, yes I will own one specific copy of the story. I won't hold the copyright on the story of course, but that has nothing to do with owning specific copies of it.
>You are new to this whole intelectual property
>thing, arn't you?
No, not at all. Especially not copyright. By the way, what do you mean apart from copyright with "intellectual property"? We were discussing copyright so if you want to add in other stuff, then tell what so I know.
>Yes, you just bought a box with some media in
>it.. you own the box and the media. You do not
>own what is on the media but luckily the box
>comes with a license for usign it.
No, when you buy something you get it all. Why would you not? In this case, you buy (apart from the box and so on) one copy (the material object onto whoch a work is fixated). That copy is yours, you own it. Don't confuise this with holding the copyright to the work, you don't, but you DO own one copy of the content.
Most copuntries also consider such copies nessecary to run software to not be infringing anyway. For example, in US, this is covered in section 117 of the copyright law:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1)
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
Other countries have similar situation. So yes, such copies are OK to make.
>Where's the problem with this? They didn't
>install it on your machine (contrary to your
>analogy), it denies access only to things the
>copyright holder (and intellectual property
>owner) doesn't want you to access (which is a
>legal right, by the way).
Actually access is NOT a typical right under normal copyright laws. It has been added as a sort of new right in some countries through DMCA (or similar) legislation though. However, it is NOT a new right given to the copyright holder, instead there is typically a ban on circumventing access protection. So access in itself is actually NOT a protected right for a copyright holder.
For a list of (almost) exclusive rights a copyright holder is given, check the copyright law of your own country. It typically will be the same for most countries though.
>I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you
>don't own the games you buy. You own a license
>to use those games. Big difference.
Lets see, I enter a store, pick up some product or merchendice, pay for it and leave the shop. Do I own what I just bought? Yup! Typically regulated through sale or consumer sale laws in most countries. Why you would think sale laws doesn't apply to computer games is beyoned me.
>Umm, then how does the GPL work?
Easy, it works by giving you an additional right (redistribution for example) that you do not normally have and which belongs to the copyright holder. To get that you need to agree to the GPL. If you don't want or need that extended rights, you can simply ignore the GPL.
>The grandparent poster was correct: copyright
>law in the US (which brings contract law to
>bear) permits the copyright owner a hell of a
>lot of leeway in making demands on the user--
>there are limits, but they're waaaay out there.
Ehh, would you mind pointing out what part of copyright laws that gives the copyright holder such "rights" to make demands? Copyright gives the copyright owner some specific rights, all of which mentioned in the copyright law. That is it. Nothing else. The basic ones deals with copying, distribution, public performance and so on. Note that USE is not such a right. DMCA do change it a bit since it adds access (and hence use) use for circumvention.
If anyone wants to make additional contracts or restrictions on something they sell, they can always do it, it really have nothing to do with copyright laws though (but contract laws as you mentioned). I admit I don't know the american contract laws much (as oposed to copyright laws), only know those of my own country. But I would be surprised if there isn't anything in the laws regulating consumer sales and at least some sort of deal about unfair contrcts for example or things that simply can't be put into a contract and so on.
>That's because it's a license agreement: as your
>end of a contract, you agree to accept MS's
>conditions, while they fulfill their end of the
>contract by allowing you to use their software.
Huh? You don't need any contract or licencse to use software. Use is not one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder (see copyright law).
*checks back of airline ticket*
Yup, follows regulations set up by IATA.
*checks what governs my next charter trip*
Yup, regulations set up by agreements by the joint travel agensies group (not sure about correct english word, but most travel angencies are members) and a govermental part dealing with consumer issues in Sweden (Konsumentverket)
*checks regulations for possible sea travel tickt to buy*
Yup, travel regulations include international treaties for sea transport of passangers.
For airline and train travels and such, those agreements are typically made between some sort of organization representing those selling travels and some goverment or consumer organization. It is standard agreements that would apply to everyone selling airline travels for example and thus an individual airline can't add extra parts (like we don't do engine maintenance so tough luck if we crash).
As for software, I can see the "two separate" contracts, and of course that is not a problem, the problem is that it is a contract forced onto you AFTER you allready bought the software. If the contracts (both between shop and software compnay) were done befre the purchase, it would be another matter, now it is done after you allready bought and own a copy of the software and at that point, someone else can't force you to agree to a contract just because you want to use what you bought.
Having the contracts agreed at time of purchase is not a problöem or uncommon. When you buy a cell phone, it is not uncommon that the deal is sponsored by a company that handle the phone calls. So you also sign up with them for a year or something. However, those deals are always done, signed, agreed and so on in the shop before you buy the phone. You never see someone selling you a phone for $1 and thwn when you get home and try to use it, you are shown a contract that you can only use it when calling through company X and at specific costs and so on.
That is how software sales should be set up IF there is a need for additional contracts as part of the sale. It is worth mentioning that a huge part of many EULA are actually not needed at all since it is allready part of laws (for example copyright laws). Other parts are unenforcable anyway (depending on country and laws). The actual additional agreement is usually not that much and almpst always restrictions on what the buyer can do.
If someone deprives you of capital (your TV) because you didn't take measures to protect it (a door and lock) it will get stolen evetually. Likewise if you don't protect your capital (your software product) with some means (CD key, etc.) it will get stolen.
Gee, so you mean if someone infringes your copyright (since you did not protect it) you end up not having your software any more?
A software pirate is stealing the developers time and effort. Even if 80% of pirates never intended to buy the software in the first place the developer is still out the money from the remaining 20% who are simply cheapskates.
Ahh, so someone stole TIME? You end up losing time? Were did it go and since when can time be illegal to steal? And since when is depriving someone of profit illegal?
You DO reaslise that copyright infringement is not illegal due to any profit, time or whatever is lost (or stolen or whatever) right? Since none of those activities are illegal. Or do you consider it illegal to give a way a book you allready read since it is also stealing in the exact same way. The illegal activity for copyright infringement is the act of copying itself. It is further for the most cases illegal regardless of if you lost some revenue or development time or whatever.
No, people equate theft with mass copyright infringement, like putting cds on p2p programs and trading hacked software. We could argue the numbers all day, but some people, when they want a cd or a game etc, they DO download a pirated version of whatever. Essentially it is theft, perhaps not the "proper" textbook version of theft, but copies being available online does take away some money from companies, as there would of been a few, in the minimum, who would of bought the game/cd if it wasn't available on-line.
No one is arguing that copyright violation is NOT illegal, people are arguing that calling it theft (and stealing) is very bad and wrong. Why should one not call it the proper way? You don't see people screaming it is murder when someone breaks into your house and then when they claim it was not murder but someone breaking into your house you claim, "hey, both are illegal so what are you complaining about"?
Calling it stealing makes you think and draw other similarities to normal theft which is about physical properties and then you end up all wrong in much. Trying to make some similarity to "stolen revenue" and that they lost possible income is equal wrong since none is illegal to start with, you can't steal possible revenue. By such reasoning one soon end up thinking that me, giving (or selling) an old book I no longer want is also stealing since I would in the same way take away revenue from the company. If everyone accept the "stealing" analogy and if everyone call it that way, people will also draw the conclusion that my example is also illegal since I "stole" as well.
The illegal activity for copyright infringement is usually the act of copying itself and the distribution of such copies. THAT is what is illegal, nothing else. The money part has nothing to do with the illegalness (although the penalty can be affected about involvement of money).
So why not call it the proper way, copyright infringement instead of saying "it is stealing" and simply implying and want people to draw the same conclusions as you do with theft of physical property?
Or take one of those tax free bottles and smash it and you got something quite ugly to replace a knife (or two).