Sorry, let me rephrase that, it is "hardware PLUS bits and bytes". You do get the bits and bytes as well, not just the hardware as the original poster I replied to tried to imply.
Ehh, obviously the features was in the camera you bought and payed for. If they didn't want you to use it, they should not have included it to start with.
If it can be other things than loose gas cap, then don't print loose gas cap, print leak in gas tank. Tell (for example in manual explaining errors) that one thing to check could be the gas cap or whatever.
>The codes aren't encrypted on cars for the most >part, though on some they are.
Depends on how you view "encryption". Appearantly there is some sort of error (with a message about it) that is transformed into some sort of code that is reported. It needs a special "key" to translate back to the proper error and message about it (that is what it is all about). Some might not call it encryption and it certainly is not a good one, but I can't see why one would not view it as a sort of encryption.
Simple solution, disagree to the EULA, then resell your copy. Nothing wrong with that.
Right of distribution is usualy (in most countries copyright laws) consumed after the first sale, hence you are allowed to resell, for example, a book, a music CD, or some computer software as much as you want.
>It's commonly believed on slashdot that copying >copyrighted material and giving it to your >friend is legal. It's also commonly believed >that this is called "fair use." Both of these >are misconceptions
Actually it is not always a missconception. It depends a LOT on what one is talking about. some countries specifically allows such copying for example. In Sweden it is legal to make copies (in low quantities) and give to family and close friends for example. Thus it is not at all a missconception. The equivalency to "fair use" is handled and written differentyl into the law though but the best translation of it in my opinion is that it is the equivalency of fair use.
Since copyright (theoretically) expires, how is that handled by such flags? A device would need to know when copyright expire and it can ignore the flag, no?
Unless you have a very different copyright law in your country, it does not at all give the owner of the copyright the right to do as they want. Copyright basically gives a few exclusives rights to the copyright holder (and they are not always completely exclusive, exceptions exists). Those rights are about copying, distribution, public performance and such. That is it. Nothing else. There is no such exclusiveness about USE for example.
Now, if one sell a copy of a work, it doesn't matter if you hold the copyright, one can still not control the use. The only thing one can control (or rather, what the buyer of the copy can't do) are the few things that are exclusive to the copyright holder.
Of course, one can instead of selling something, rent it, or sell it under specific conditions and so on. That has absolutely nothing to do with copyright though. One can do that with anything. One can rent a car for example instead of sell it. It can restrict how you can use the car and were you can go just as one could do with a copy of music. It has nothing to do with copyright laws though. It has to do with sale laws, contract laws and so on.
> But, there is also a copy protection scheme >(CSS).
Ehh, isn't that actually a access protection, not a copy protection. it is my understanding that it is an encryption of the data. Encrypting something does not in any way prevent copying (one get a nice, encrypted copy). It do prevent access to the content though.
I would say it is against conumers' interests to permit anyone selling music or movies at all because there is no way that a seller can distinguish between a customer that will copy it and one that will not.
Very seldom when I have my car in for repairs, service or whatever do they make a check on my identity. Even more, they don't compare it with any register of car owners. Actually, sometimes I have someone else dirve the car there. I have not heared of them checking the car versus some stolen car registers either.
>Like it or not, creators of software get to >charge for the right to use their software. It >is, after all, their intellectual property.
No, copyright doesn't give any right to charge or use it. It gives a right to make copies, distribute, create derived work and so on. That is it. USE is not part of copyright.
The reason why one believe in owning something one buy is because that is the concept of buying and typically regulated through various sale or consumer sale laws. When you enter a shop and buy a book or CD or whatever, that is what has happened, you have bought a copy of it and it is now yours, with content and whatever you want to call it). You do not hold the copyright to it, of course. That is something completely separate. As with anything you own, you can do pretty much anything with it as long as you don't break any particular law. With something that has copyright on it, the things you can't do with something you own, is things that through copyright law is given as an (almost) exclusive right to the copyright holder (which is NOT the same as the owner which in this case is you). Most common of those rights are the ones about copying and distribution. Still, the exclusiveness has exceptions. It varies with countries some but typically it is what is called "fair use". In Sweden for example, it includes making copying for family and close friends. Such copying is still OK:
When it comes to software and GPL, it is the exact same situation. Once you have and own a copy of it (typically there were no cost involved in getting a copy of it) you can again do everything allowed by law with it, including using it for example. Creating copies and distributing them are still governed by copyright laws. The same applies to creating derived work, you can usually not do any of those. To be able to do so, however, you can agree to the terms in the GPL and by doing so being granted the rights to do things normally only available to the copyright holder.
There really is nothing different with the above two cases.
No matter what various dictionaries might claim or say, and what people might think of similarities, it is important to note the difference in regard to LAW. From a law perspective it is NOT theft since theft laws does not apply. If they did, why on earth would we need copyright laws to beging with? We could just apply normal laws regarding theft.
>Also most any ISP ( or large company >internally ) tracks IP addresses to accounts ( >for billing reasons ) so its pretty easy to >connect a person to an IP at a particular point >in time.
Not really, I don't think there is any way to see WHO actually used an account. One can have a situation with a family, who used the account? Or a friend comming over using it and so on.
Just invite them to your home. Put your own EULA for visiting your home on the table in the kitchen and have it state that by entering your home they agreed to it. If you want it to be usefull, add that you may change it at will later.
>...together with DMCA (or in my case the EU >copyright directive, which is equivalent)...
I don't think this is really true. It is my understanding that the DMCA is not only about proetction of copying (or other copyright "rights") but also about protection for access. This is not true for the EU directive. Sure, some European countries have expanded their implementation to include such things too.
If one look at the Swedish proposed implementation (I don't think the final proposal is done yet though), it is very specific in that only protection that protect the rights granted to copyright holders are to be considered. Copying is such a thing, access is not. Thus, a protection system that protects access (and not copying) you are free to cicumvent all you want. And yes, a protection that mixes what it protectes, you will be allowed to circumvent too.
So no, the EU directiove does not seem to equal the DMCA in that case which is a significant difference in my opinion.
The solution is quite easy, have a set time not dependant on the time of anyones death. For exmaple 10 years. That gives a LOT of time to profit from a work, yet also gives everyone else a chance to utilize it afterwards without having to wait an eternity. If anyone dies in the 10 years, fine, let it be passed on to children or whoever it is that gets it.
Claiming that one need more than, say, 10 years to make enough profit for it to be enough of an incitament to create really don't cut it in my opinion and those cases were someone would skip the bussiness because of that are few enough to not be worried about. We will have a LOT of work, good enough incitament for progress and new creations, yet everyone get to benefit from it in a not too long time as well.
>Yes yes, and in one month Saddam Hussein killed >many more people in Iraq than the US ever has.
Cool, trying to follow the general reasoning here, it is OK to kill someone (including in the process having others, innocent or not geting killed as well) as long as they guy I am getting have killed more than I will. Somewere there is something wrong in the reasoning...
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, let me rephrase that, it is "hardware PLUS bits and bytes". You do get the bits and bytes as well, not just the hardware as the original poster I replied to tried to imply.
Ehh, obviously the features was in the camera you bought and payed for. If they didn't want you to use it, they should not have included it to start with.
If it can be other things than loose gas cap, then don't print loose gas cap, print leak in gas tank. Tell (for example in manual explaining errors) that one thing to check could be the gas cap or whatever.
>The codes aren't encrypted on cars for the most
>part, though on some they are.
Depends on how you view "encryption". Appearantly there is some sort of error (with a message about it) that is transformed into some sort of code that is reported. It needs a special "key" to translate back to the proper error and message about it (that is what it is all about). Some might not call it encryption and it certainly is not a good one, but I can't see why one would not view it as a sort of encryption.
>The bits and bytes, or the IP, is not what is
>being sold here. It's the actual game disc and
>packaging itself.
Actually in almost all cases what is sold actually is one copy of the "bits and bytes, or the IP".
And if that still doesn't work, disagree with any EULA and sell the the copy.
Simple solution, disagree to the EULA, then resell your copy. Nothing wrong with that.
Right of distribution is usualy (in most countries copyright laws) consumed after the first sale, hence you are allowed to resell, for example, a book, a music CD, or some computer software as much as you want.
>It's commonly believed on slashdot that copying
>copyrighted material and giving it to your
>friend is legal. It's also commonly believed
>that this is called "fair use." Both of these
>are misconceptions
Actually it is not always a missconception. It depends a LOT on what one is talking about. some countries specifically allows such copying for example. In Sweden it is legal to make copies (in low quantities) and give to family and close friends for example. Thus it is not at all a missconception. The equivalency to "fair use" is handled and written differentyl into the law though but the best translation of it in my opinion is that it is the equivalency of fair use.
Since copyright (theoretically) expires, how is that handled by such flags? A device would need to know when copyright expire and it can ignore the flag, no?
Unless you have a very different copyright law in your country, it does not at all give the owner of the copyright the right to do as they want. Copyright basically gives a few exclusives rights to the copyright holder (and they are not always completely exclusive, exceptions exists). Those rights are about copying, distribution, public performance and such. That is it. Nothing else. There is no such exclusiveness about USE for example.
Now, if one sell a copy of a work, it doesn't matter if you hold the copyright, one can still not control the use. The only thing one can control (or rather, what the buyer of the copy can't do) are the few things that are exclusive to the copyright holder.
Of course, one can instead of selling something, rent it, or sell it under specific conditions and so on. That has absolutely nothing to do with copyright though. One can do that with anything. One can rent a car for example instead of sell it. It can restrict how you can use the car and were you can go just as one could do with a copy of music. It has nothing to do with copyright laws though. It has to do with sale laws, contract laws and so on.
> But, there is also a copy protection scheme
>(CSS).
Ehh, isn't that actually a access protection, not a copy protection. it is my understanding that it is an encryption of the data. Encrypting something does not in any way prevent copying (one get a nice, encrypted copy). It do prevent access to the content though.
I would say it is against conumers' interests to permit anyone selling music or movies at all because there is no way that a seller can distinguish between a customer that will copy it and one that will not.
Very seldom when I have my car in for repairs, service or whatever do they make a check on my identity. Even more, they don't compare it with any register of car owners. Actually, sometimes I have someone else dirve the car there. I have not heared of them checking the car versus some stolen car registers either.
>Like it or not, creators of software get to
>charge for the right to use their software. It
>is, after all, their intellectual property.
No, copyright doesn't give any right to charge or use it. It gives a right to make copies, distribute, create derived work and so on. That is it. USE is not part of copyright.
In many countries, yes, the 12 year old himself.
The reason why one believe in owning something one buy is because that is the concept of buying and typically regulated through various sale or consumer sale laws. When you enter a shop and buy a book or CD or whatever, that is what has happened, you have bought a copy of it and it is now yours, with content and whatever you want to call it). You do not hold the copyright to it, of course. That is something completely separate. As with anything you own, you can do pretty much anything with it as long as you don't break any particular law. With something that has copyright on it, the things you can't do with something you own, is things that through copyright law is given as an (almost) exclusive right to the copyright holder (which is NOT the same as the owner which in this case is you). Most common of those rights are the ones about copying and distribution. Still, the exclusiveness has exceptions. It varies with countries some but typically it is what is called "fair use". In Sweden for example, it includes making copying for family and close friends. Such copying is still OK:
When it comes to software and GPL, it is the exact same situation. Once you have and own a copy of it (typically there were no cost involved in getting a copy of it) you can again do everything allowed by law with it, including using it for example. Creating copies and distributing them are still governed by copyright laws. The same applies to creating derived work, you can usually not do any of those. To be able to do so, however, you can agree to the terms in the GPL and by doing so being granted the rights to do things normally only available to the copyright holder.
There really is nothing different with the above two cases.
Try using laws dealing with theft in a court when in fact you have a copyright infringment case and you will probably understand the difference.
No matter what various dictionaries might claim or say, and what people might think of similarities, it is important to note the difference in regard to LAW. From a law perspective it is NOT theft since theft laws does not apply. If they did, why on earth would we need copyright laws to beging with? We could just apply normal laws regarding theft.
>Also most any ISP ( or large company
>internally ) tracks IP addresses to accounts (
>for billing reasons ) so its pretty easy to
>connect a person to an IP at a particular point
>in time.
Not really, I don't think there is any way to see WHO actually used an account. One can have a situation with a family, who used the account? Or a friend comming over using it and so on.
That would be "MyKnife", no?
Just invite them to your home. Put your own EULA for visiting your home on the table in the kitchen and have it state that by entering your home they agreed to it. If you want it to be usefull, add that you may change it at will later.
>...together with DMCA (or in my case the EU
>copyright directive, which is equivalent)...
I don't think this is really true. It is my understanding that the DMCA is not only about proetction of copying (or other copyright "rights") but also about protection for access. This is not true for the EU directive. Sure, some European countries have expanded their implementation to include such things too.
If one look at the Swedish proposed implementation (I don't think the final proposal is done yet though), it is very specific in that only protection that protect the rights granted to copyright holders are to be considered. Copying is such a thing, access is not. Thus, a protection system that protects access (and not copying) you are free to cicumvent all you want. And yes, a protection that mixes what it protectes, you will be allowed to circumvent too.
So no, the EU directiove does not seem to equal the DMCA in that case which is a significant difference in my opinion.
The solution is quite easy, have a set time not dependant on the time of anyones death. For exmaple 10 years. That gives a LOT of time to profit from a work, yet also gives everyone else a chance to utilize it afterwards without having to wait an eternity. If anyone dies in the 10 years, fine, let it be passed on to children or whoever it is that gets it.
Claiming that one need more than, say, 10 years to make enough profit for it to be enough of an incitament to create really don't cut it in my opinion and those cases were someone would skip the bussiness because of that are few enough to not be worried about. We will have a LOT of work, good enough incitament for progress and new creations, yet everyone get to benefit from it in a not too long time as well.
You still have to download it to get a hash of it (and then have something to compare it too).
>Yes yes, and in one month Saddam Hussein killed
>many more people in Iraq than the US ever has.
Cool, trying to follow the general reasoning here, it is OK to kill someone (including in the process having others, innocent or not geting killed as well) as long as they guy I am getting have killed more than I will. Somewere there is something wrong in the reasoning...