>If not, then I have no right to use it at all, >since the agreement is the very thing that gives >me the right to use the software in the first >place.
Why would you need sich agreement to start with? Nothing prohibits USE of something just because there is copyrights involved! In addition, most countries laws allow for such copying needed to use something (such as copying into RAM) so that is not really an issue (not sure about your exact country though). So you would not need any license any more than you need one to read a book, look at a painting or using your new vacum cleaner.
>I would think that with an ipod, the agreement is >totally implicit from the get-go, since I doubt >there's a EULA popup the first time you turn it >on
Correct me if I am wrong, but iPod is not a computer software, is it? it is a music player, no? When if at any time do you get to agree to anything when buying it?
Ehh, you mean th elaw says that the store has to present me with a license in the shop if I want to buy an iPod???? If you don't agree to any license when you buy the iPod, then there is none, regardless of if there is any software on the iPod or not. Just as I don't have to agree to any license when I buy a TV set, despite it most certainly have software somewere on some components.
>Presumably the only way to get past it to load >Linux was by clicking OK
As far as I see, that is someone forcing you into accepting an agreement, such agreements are generally not enforcable. Imagine me visiting you and placing a piece of paper on your kitchen table stating that if you remove it you agree to.... Would that be valid? You can only remove the paper by agreeing mind you!!!
Excuse me for wondering, but what have Real done that makes it possible to circumvent the protection on music (downloaded from whatever place, like iTunes) so that you can access it, or copy or whatever, in a way you could not do before? What they seem to have done is make completely OTHER music files (their own) also be playable on the iPod. So what exactly is circumvented when you play music from Real on an iPod?
Perhaps they did, but then they simply decided to disagree with the license and have it rewoked or something. Then they would no longer have agreed to it either.
Besides, forgive me for not knowing so well, but isn't the iPod a physical music player? If you go to a store to buy it, do you really have to agree to a license to buy it? Just a question.
>In this case, Real would be in violation of the >software license on the iPod,
WHat makes you think that Real have aquired a license (I think the article said they had not) and then broken/violated it? If they do NOT have it or have agreed to it, they can't possible violate it.
No, the copyright laws governing a work is always the individual countries. Basically a countries copyright law, applies to work created in tha country and/or by members of it. And nothing else
What the Bern convention (for example) do is that a country will also honor work from outher countries (that are also part af the agreement) as if they had been created in its country and thus they will get the same protection as other work.
>1) MMORPGs are extremely expensive to run (new >content must be generated so the game doesn't >become sterile) so you _have_ to have a monthly >fee.
Sure, but does the added content equal a quarter of a new game each month? For each player?
If not, one simply get more value from buying another (new) game instead every 4th month (and if one go for slightly older games, that are cheaper one can buy one even more often.
Heh, by the same argument, basically ANY data transmitted will at some point be "stored" in some memory chip in a router somewere and not transmitted for a short while, and then it can be looked at. Crazy...
The 3rd party vendor is using STK's code to generate error logs and to diagnose hardware/software problems. They're basing their business largely on the unlicensed use of STK's intellectual property (the maintenance code in this case). How is that legal?
How is it illegal???? First of, you simply use "intellectual property" (IP) in a broad sense. It is typically used to mean a bunch of things tossed together, like patents, copyrights and more. However, very different laws, rules and concept cover them. People tend to say IP and sort of mean/think that suddenly whatever is IP is basically untouchable and one isn't allowed to do anything at all with it (not claiming you say so). In this case we are almost certianly dealing with copyright (they were using the DMCA right?) so lets use copyright for the sake of clarity.
Now, copyright gives a few (almost) exclusives rights to the copyright holder. That is it, everything else is not an exclusive right to the copyright holder. Now, USE is not such an exclusive right. One can't infringe on copyright by simply using something. You can't infringe on the copyright of a book by reading it for example.
As for the data generated by the software, it would not be covered by copyright. Simple data from a computer program is not something that gets covered by copyright. Using such data is even less a copyright infringement.
One of the "problems" I see with the DMCA (I am not an american by the way), is that it adds circumvention of a right that really does not exists for the copyright holder. That is access (and hence use) of a work. That action in itself is not a copyright infringement, but circumvention any protection to access the work is not allowed, which turns bizare in my opinion.
One thing to also note, is that the circumvention is only for protections that protect rights the copyright holder has. One such example is copying. Access is NOT a right the copyright holder have exclusivnessly. Hence protection systems for access, like region coding or many of the protections on music CDs (that prvenst access on some devices but not really copying) are NOT protected from circumvention, youcan circumvent them all you want.
In the swedish implementation (or the draft that was arround some time ago, have not seen the final propsal), this was specifically mentioned and discussed, and also cases were some protection was both copyright related (copying) and non copyright related (like access). It was deemed that circumvention in those cases was STILL ok as it would otherwise put to much power into the hands of copuright owenr. They have the option to put in measures that relate to copyright (and have protection) or measures that that relate to other things as well (and not get protection). A quite interesting reasoning in my opinion.
>do you feel that software is different, because >it is not a physical item?
Of course. There is a huge difference in something being physical and something not, don't you agree? A non physical "thing" is something that can exist anywere and everywere at any time.
Anyone can at anytime (disregarding practical matters) turn it into a physical object themselves of course, yet the non physical part still exists as well.
Physical objects has value in the physical material of it, while a non physical object does not. It doesn't "cost" me any resources to have an idea or to exchange it or to tell anyone about it.
Ownership of a physical object is relatively simple. Its location for example is easy to know and it can only be at one place. A non physical object is harder to own since it can be "created", thought about and so on by anyone at anytime, and without preventing someone else from it (I can think of a computer program without someone else thinking of it having to stop, I can even turn a computer program into a physical form by writing it down, without someone else doing the same being affected or losing his thought or physical for of it).
SUch differences is the whole reason why one "invented" copyright laws to start with. Physical objects, their ownership and handling has long been handled and dealt with but can't for obvious reasons be applied to non physical things (although when you fixate a non physical work into a physical form,each such physical copy themselves becomes a physical opbject that can be covered by normal laws regulating physical objects). The non physical part and the ownership of it is thus VERY different from a physical part and its ownership.
>Copyright Infringement: Violation of copyright >through unauthorized copying or use of a work or >other subject matter under copyright.
What country's copyright law would that be? In most countries, the USE of work that someone holds the copyright is not at all covered by copyright law. Reproduction (making copies), distribution (usually only first sale though) and public performance are the typical actions that are covered by copyright law and given an (almost) exclusive right to the copyright holder. everything else is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder. That is why I can read any book, even one I don't own, and not infringing on the copyright.
>Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to >the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized >copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'
Ehh, the only "ownership" it assigns is the copyright. It would not be ownership to each copy were the work that had copyright is fixed into a tangible form (basically made into a physical copy). Of course, the copyright holder will typically always be the first owenr of each such copy, but they are then usually sold and then there is no longer such an ownership othe individual copy. Of course, the copyright is not sold along with the physical copies. Hence there is a big difference in owning a copyright on something and owning the individual copies of the work. For example, I own the books in my own, but do not own any copyright on any of them.
You seem to equate the copyright to a property. That is, by holding or owning a copyright, you have a property. Fine, lets go with that. However, no one is stealing the copyright when copying a book (or computer software), you still have it, and they don't. They create a new copy (unauthorized since only a copyright holder can typically do that) so against the law, but they did now steal any property at all.
>Come on now, please... How is this not a form of >theft,
Try applying laws regulating theft and see how far you get. The whole copyright issue and laws handling it would be pointless if it was theft.
>since you have now denied the theatre the money, >you have taken something from them.
WHAT was taken???? Tell me, what do you now have that they used to have (and no longer have)? one can't steal "possible revenue". The payment is actually mostly irellevant and there could be many other ways to see a movie (none of which would be copyright infringement and most not theft either) without paying for it.
>The moment you take money from someones pocket >you are stealing from them,
Of course. They had money, now they don't, you have it. Theft, and you apply laws handlign theft. You would for example not charge anyone with copyright infringement if they took money from your pocket.
> the moment you go outside of the designed >medium and circumvent the process of payment, >you are stealing.
Huh. THAT is an analogy I can't follow. Were in this case are the money (from the "pocket") taken? What money do you know have that the others used to? THAT is what theft is about. You getting something someone else had (and hence no longer have). Copyright infringement is something completely different.
>It's not denying a corporation profits that is >the issue. You can do that by abstaining from >buying the product. The issue is getting the >product *even though* you haven't paid.
This is not correct. Copyright has nothing to do with not paying for something you get. There are many (many, many) ways you can get a product without paying for it that are not copyright infringement at all. Payment is actually not at all something tied to copyright. I can borrow a book, I can read it at a friends home, he can give it to me, I can find a book and so on. In all cases I will have a product and read it without paying for it and yet, there is no copyright infringement. Actually, I can even steal the book and it is still not copyright infringement (it is theft though).
The idea is that they put stuff on sale virtually at cost to lure you into the store, and then you're supposed to be a good little consumer and buy a bunch of other crap at full price. The store would prefer not to do business with people who don't fall for this ploy.
They should contact the music industry. We clearly have a case of theft here. People are stealing!! Those stores make a living out of selling you stuff and you are depriving them of the income. No, they have a right to make a living out of you and you clearlycircumvent their method to make you pay. I think we need a law against it so people (thieves) can't just come in and buy stuff on sale without buying other things too. The industry must lose billions each year.
As a non american, what is such a service plan? Is it really so that one does not have any sort of protection against faulty products through any consumer sale law for example? Or by "break" was it strictly refering to if *you* break it? Just wondering.
>If content producers want to control how their >content is distributed, isn't that the content >producer's perogative?
Then they should keep their content for themselves and have full controll. Just as someone selling chairs should/could not controll how someone uses it, a content creator should not either. Sure, a chair manufacturer would love if you had to buy a new chair for each room, whenever you moved to a new house and prevent someone from siting in your lap (without you paying twice) but that is not thier bussiness if they want to sell chairs.
Keep things for yourself if you want to control them, but if you sell it to others, and you can't any more.
>Why don't car companies tack EULA's onto their >vehicles saying if it's defective, you're SOL?
What? Have you not seen it? It usually pops up when you open up the lid to fill more gas on your car. It typically cover the opening and states that if you remove it (so you can fill in gas), you agree to it. The basic concept is, you can't use the car without agreeing to it. Typical things found in such car EULAs are:
You did in fact not buy the car after all, the manufacturer still owns it and you only license it for use (you actually have to destroy the car if you don't agree any more or they tell you to)
You can't really change anything on the car. You are not allowed to fix anything broken. You can't buy a cover for the seats or pillows for the back seats.
You can only buy and use gas that is approved by them.
You are not allowed to look under the hood to see how the car works.
You are not allowed to go faster than speed limits (or break any other traffic law) since it give them a bad name, in that case you have to destroy the car.
You are not allowed to have any additional people in the car, they need to pay extra for additional license uses, and if they own competing cars, they are not allowed to travell with you at all.
You must allow the car manufacturer to be able, at any time, to enter the car to check so you have not modified it, or have any item in the car they don't like. Actually, they must be allowed to enter your house and parking lot as well to see what other cars or car related pruducts you might own.
There is no guarantee that the car work at all (At this time their caps lock key usually gets messed up). It is your responsability to continously go to their factory to check if there is any spare part they can change for you so the car work.
By the way, the key used to start they car will typically stop working once you fill the car with gas the first time. After that, you have to send it to the manufacturer for a new one. You must at that time supply them with info on your current shoes, living location, information on bags put in the car and so on. All that is recoreded into the new keys so that you can't change to much of it, like buying a completely new kit of travelling bags, that can be an indication someone else actually use the car and that is not allowed.
The list goes on....it is incredible that they manage to put it all on that piece of papre covering hole for the gas.
>When I go to Best Buy to pick up a copy of >Windows, I'm not buying Windows itself. I'm >buying a copy of it; not the actual software. >Furthermore,
Ehh, yes, as you say, you buy a copy of it, it being the software. Yes, you are buying a copy of the software. You are then the owner of that copy. Unless you make some agreement when you make the purchase, you have bought it. Normal sales laws govern it all.
>However, if you're using an ISP's mail account, >then it's more than just the connection service, >you're using their storage, etc etc so they can >filter it.
DO you by that mean that they should also be responsible if the do not filter? WOuld you similary claim someone that rent houses to pepople should be responsible if they don't "filter" items brought into the house that could, for example be illegal or involved in illegal activities?
How does this conform with normal sales laws? Basically if you sell something, you transfer ownership. Is software and other media such as music not sold in a traditional way in US? In my experience (including the one time I was in US) it seemed to be sold normally. Hence you would own that specific copy of the content as well. The only way arround it as I see it (unless specific laws says otherwise) would be to make any other agreement at the time of purchase (or prior to it).
>While single-clicking and double-clicking are >common now, it's the double-clicking and long- >time clicking on a PDA that's somewhat novel.
Patents are meant for inventions, how can this be called anything close to an invention? Just because you now do something since long common "on a PDA" (or whetever next you might think up) we have a new invention and something that should be granted a Patent? What if people do it with their eyes shut or with their toes, is that something novel and worth a patent as well?
Slashdot Mirror
>This is very different than DeCSS, where there
>was obvious infringing uses.
What infringing uses? To watch a DVD you own?
>If not, then I have no right to use it at all,
>since the agreement is the very thing that gives
>me the right to use the software in the first
>place.
Why would you need sich agreement to start with? Nothing prohibits USE of something just because there is copyrights involved! In addition, most countries laws allow for such copying needed to use something (such as copying into RAM) so that is not really an issue (not sure about your exact country though). So you would not need any license any more than you need one to read a book, look at a painting or using your new vacum cleaner.
>I would think that with an ipod, the agreement is
>totally implicit from the get-go, since I doubt
>there's a EULA popup the first time you turn it
>on
Correct me if I am wrong, but iPod is not a computer software, is it? it is a music player, no? When if at any time do you get to agree to anything when buying it?
>Yes, under current law.
.... Would that be valid? You can only remove the paper by agreeing mind you!!!
Ehh, you mean th elaw says that the store has to present me with a license in the shop if I want to buy an iPod???? If you don't agree to any license when you buy the iPod, then there is none, regardless of if there is any software on the iPod or not. Just as I don't have to agree to any license when I buy a TV set, despite it most certainly have software somewere on some components.
>Presumably the only way to get past it to load
>Linux was by clicking OK
As far as I see, that is someone forcing you into accepting an agreement, such agreements are generally not enforcable. Imagine me visiting you and placing a piece of paper on your kitchen table stating that if you remove it you agree to
Excuse me for wondering, but what have Real done that makes it possible to circumvent the protection on music (downloaded from whatever place, like iTunes) so that you can access it, or copy or whatever, in a way you could not do before? What they seem to have done is make completely OTHER music files (their own) also be playable on the iPod. So what exactly is circumvented when you play music from Real on an iPod?
Perhaps they did, but then they simply decided to disagree with the license and have it rewoked or something. Then they would no longer have agreed to it either.
Besides, forgive me for not knowing so well, but isn't the iPod a physical music player? If you go to a store to buy it, do you really have to agree to a license to buy it? Just a question.
>In this case, Real would be in violation of the
>software license on the iPod,
WHat makes you think that Real have aquired a license (I think the article said they had not) and then broken/violated it? If they do NOT have it or have agreed to it, they can't possible violate it.
No, the copyright laws governing a work is always the individual countries. Basically a countries copyright law, applies to work created in tha country and/or by members of it. And nothing else
What the Bern convention (for example) do is that a country will also honor work from outher countries (that are also part af the agreement) as if they had been created in its country and thus they will get the same protection as other work.
>Mine's movies. I compare it all to movies.
Ehh, mine's other games. I can get a completely full new game for the fee of 4 month (or so. less if I buy older).
>1) MMORPGs are extremely expensive to run (new
>content must be generated so the game doesn't
>become sterile) so you _have_ to have a monthly
>fee.
Sure, but does the added content equal a quarter of a new game each month? For each player?
If not, one simply get more value from buying another (new) game instead every 4th month (and if one go for slightly older games, that are cheaper one can buy one even more often.
Heh, by the same argument, basically ANY data transmitted will at some point be "stored" in some memory chip in a router somewere and not transmitted for a short while, and then it can be looked at. Crazy...
The 3rd party vendor is using STK's code to generate error logs and to diagnose hardware/software problems. They're basing their business largely on the unlicensed use of STK's intellectual property (the maintenance code in this case). How is that legal?
How is it illegal???? First of, you simply use "intellectual property" (IP) in a broad sense. It is typically used to mean a bunch of things tossed together, like patents, copyrights and more. However, very different laws, rules and concept cover them. People tend to say IP and sort of mean/think that suddenly whatever is IP is basically untouchable and one isn't allowed to do anything at all with it (not claiming you say so). In this case we are almost certianly dealing with copyright (they were using the DMCA right?) so lets use copyright for the sake of clarity.
Now, copyright gives a few (almost) exclusives rights to the copyright holder. That is it, everything else is not an exclusive right to the copyright holder. Now, USE is not such an exclusive right. One can't infringe on copyright by simply using something. You can't infringe on the copyright of a book by reading it for example.
As for the data generated by the software, it would not be covered by copyright. Simple data from a computer program is not something that gets covered by copyright. Using such data is even less a copyright infringement.
One of the "problems" I see with the DMCA (I am not an american by the way), is that it adds circumvention of a right that really does not exists for the copyright holder. That is access (and hence use) of a work. That action in itself is not a copyright infringement, but circumvention any protection to access the work is not allowed, which turns bizare in my opinion.
One thing to also note, is that the circumvention is only for protections that protect rights the copyright holder has. One such example is copying. Access is NOT a right the copyright holder have exclusivnessly. Hence protection systems for access, like region coding or many of the protections on music CDs (that prvenst access on some devices but not really copying) are NOT protected from circumvention, youcan circumvent them all you want.
In the swedish implementation (or the draft that was arround some time ago, have not seen the final propsal), this was specifically mentioned and discussed, and also cases were some protection was both copyright related (copying) and non copyright related (like access). It was deemed that circumvention in those cases was STILL ok as it would otherwise put to much power into the hands of copuright owenr. They have the option to put in measures that relate to copyright (and have protection) or measures that that relate to other things as well (and not get protection). A quite interesting reasoning in my opinion.
>do you feel that software is different, because
>it is not a physical item?
Of course. There is a huge difference in something being physical and something not, don't you agree? A non physical "thing" is something that can exist anywere and everywere at any time.
Anyone can at anytime (disregarding practical matters) turn it into a physical object themselves of course, yet the non physical part still exists as well.
Physical objects has value in the physical material of it, while a non physical object does not. It doesn't "cost" me any resources to have an idea or to exchange it or to tell anyone about it.
Ownership of a physical object is relatively simple. Its location for example is easy to know and it can only be at one place. A non physical object is harder to own since it can be "created", thought about and so on by anyone at anytime, and without preventing someone else from it (I can think of a computer program without someone else thinking of it having to stop, I can even turn a computer program into a physical form by writing it down, without someone else doing the same being affected or losing his thought or physical for of it).
SUch differences is the whole reason why one "invented" copyright laws to start with. Physical objects, their ownership and handling has long been handled and dealt with but can't for obvious reasons be applied to non physical things (although when you fixate a non physical work into a physical form,each such physical copy themselves becomes a physical opbject that can be covered by normal laws regulating physical objects). The non physical part and the ownership of it is thus VERY different from a physical part and its ownership.
>Copyright Infringement: Violation of copyright
>through unauthorized copying or use of a work or
>other subject matter under copyright.
What country's copyright law would that be? In most countries, the USE of work that someone holds the copyright is not at all covered by copyright law. Reproduction (making copies), distribution (usually only first sale though) and public performance are the typical actions that are covered by copyright law and given an (almost) exclusive right to the copyright holder. everything else is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder. That is why I can read any book, even one I don't own, and not infringing on the copyright.
>Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to
>the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized
>copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'
Ehh, the only "ownership" it assigns is the copyright. It would not be ownership to each copy were the work that had copyright is fixed into a tangible form (basically made into a physical copy). Of course, the copyright holder will typically always be the first owenr of each such copy, but they are then usually sold and then there is no longer such an ownership othe individual copy. Of course, the copyright is not sold along with the physical copies. Hence there is a big difference in owning a copyright on something and owning the individual copies of the work. For example, I own the books in my own, but do not own any copyright on any of them.
You seem to equate the copyright to a property. That is, by holding or owning a copyright, you have a property. Fine, lets go with that. However, no one is stealing the copyright when copying a book (or computer software), you still have it, and they don't. They create a new copy (unauthorized since only a copyright holder can typically do that) so against the law, but they did now steal any property at all.
>Come on now, please... How is this not a form of
>theft,
Try applying laws regulating theft and see how far you get. The whole copyright issue and laws handling it would be pointless if it was theft.
>since you have now denied the theatre the money,
>you have taken something from them.
WHAT was taken???? Tell me, what do you now have that they used to have (and no longer have)? one can't steal "possible revenue". The payment is actually mostly irellevant and there could be many other ways to see a movie (none of which would be copyright infringement and most not theft either) without paying for it.
>The moment you take money from someones pocket
>you are stealing from them,
Of course. They had money, now they don't, you have it. Theft, and you apply laws handlign theft. You would for example not charge anyone with copyright infringement if they took money from your pocket.
> the moment you go outside of the designed
>medium and circumvent the process of payment,
>you are stealing.
Huh. THAT is an analogy I can't follow. Were in this case are the money (from the "pocket") taken? What money do you know have that the others used to? THAT is what theft is about. You getting something someone else had (and hence no longer have). Copyright infringement is something completely different.
>It's not denying a corporation profits that is
>the issue. You can do that by abstaining from
>buying the product. The issue is getting the
>product *even though* you haven't paid.
This is not correct. Copyright has nothing to do with not paying for something you get. There are many (many, many) ways you can get a product without paying for it that are not copyright infringement at all. Payment is actually not at all something tied to copyright. I can borrow a book, I can read it at a friends home, he can give it to me, I can find a book and so on. In all cases I will have a product and read it without paying for it and yet, there is no copyright infringement. Actually, I can even steal the book and it is still not copyright infringement (it is theft though).
I was joking really...
The idea is that they put stuff on sale virtually at cost to lure you into the store, and then you're supposed to be a good little consumer and buy a bunch of other crap at full price. The store would prefer not to do business with people who don't fall for this ploy.
They should contact the music industry. We clearly have a case of theft here. People are stealing!! Those stores make a living out of selling you stuff and you are depriving them of the income. No, they have a right to make a living out of you and you clearlycircumvent their method to make you pay. I think we need a law against it so people (thieves) can't just come in and buy stuff on sale without buying other things too. The industry must lose billions each year.
As a non american, what is such a service plan? Is it really so that one does not have any sort of protection against faulty products through any consumer sale law for example? Or by "break" was it strictly refering to if *you* break it? Just wondering.
>If content producers want to control how their
>content is distributed, isn't that the content
>producer's perogative?
Then they should keep their content for themselves and have full controll. Just as someone selling chairs should/could not controll how someone uses it, a content creator should not either. Sure, a chair manufacturer would love if you had to buy a new chair for each room, whenever you moved to a new house and prevent someone from siting in your lap (without you paying twice) but that is not thier bussiness if they want to sell chairs.
Keep things for yourself if you want to control them, but if you sell it to others, and you can't any more.
>Why don't car companies tack EULA's onto their
>vehicles saying if it's defective, you're SOL?
What? Have you not seen it? It usually pops up when you open up the lid to fill more gas on your car. It typically cover the opening and states that if you remove it (so you can fill in gas), you agree to it. The basic concept is, you can't use the car without agreeing to it. Typical things found in such car EULAs are:
You did in fact not buy the car after all, the manufacturer still owns it and you only license it for use (you actually have to destroy the car if you don't agree any more or they tell you to)
You can't really change anything on the car. You are not allowed to fix anything broken. You can't buy a cover for the seats or pillows for the back seats.
You can only buy and use gas that is approved by them.
You are not allowed to look under the hood to see how the car works.
You are not allowed to go faster than speed limits (or break any other traffic law) since it give them a bad name, in that case you have to destroy the car.
You are not allowed to have any additional people in the car, they need to pay extra for additional license uses, and if they own competing cars, they are not allowed to travell with you at all.
You must allow the car manufacturer to be able, at any time, to enter the car to check so you have not modified it, or have any item in the car they don't like. Actually, they must be allowed to enter your house and parking lot as well to see what other cars or car related pruducts you might own.
There is no guarantee that the car work at all (At this time their caps lock key usually gets messed up). It is your responsability to continously go to their factory to check if there is any spare part they can change for you so the car work.
By the way, the key used to start they car will typically stop working once you fill the car with gas the first time. After that, you have to send it to the manufacturer for a new one. You must at that time supply them with info on your current shoes, living location, information on bags put in the car and so on. All that is recoreded into the new keys so that you can't change to much of it, like buying a completely new kit of travelling bags, that can be an indication someone else actually use the car and that is not allowed.
The list goes on....it is incredible that they manage to put it all on that piece of papre covering hole for the gas.
>When I go to Best Buy to pick up a copy of
>Windows, I'm not buying Windows itself. I'm
>buying a copy of it; not the actual software.
>Furthermore,
Ehh, yes, as you say, you buy a copy of it, it being the software. Yes, you are buying a copy of the software. You are then the owner of that copy. Unless you make some agreement when you make the purchase, you have bought it. Normal sales laws govern it all.
>However, if you're using an ISP's mail account,
>then it's more than just the connection service,
>you're using their storage, etc etc so they can
>filter it.
DO you by that mean that they should also be responsible if the do not filter? WOuld you similary claim someone that rent houses to pepople should be responsible if they don't "filter" items brought into the house that could, for example be illegal or involved in illegal activities?
How does this conform with normal sales laws? Basically if you sell something, you transfer ownership. Is software and other media such as music not sold in a traditional way in US? In my experience (including the one time I was in US) it seemed to be sold normally. Hence you would own that specific copy of the content as well. The only way arround it as I see it (unless specific laws says otherwise) would be to make any other agreement at the time of purchase (or prior to it).
>While single-clicking and double-clicking are
>common now, it's the double-clicking and long-
>time clicking on a PDA that's somewhat novel.
Patents are meant for inventions, how can this be called anything close to an invention? Just because you now do something since long common "on a PDA" (or whetever next you might think up) we have a new invention and something that should be granted a Patent? What if people do it with their eyes shut or with their toes, is that something novel and worth a patent as well?