One difference in civil cases, as far as I have understood it, is that in US, each one pay his own costs, right? Which can be costly, just to defend versus "stupid" cases. In Sweden for example, the loser pay it all so to speak. That has some advatages but also some drawbacks.
When I order coffee, I want, and expect it to be HOT. If not, I will complain. There is no such thing as too hit since you are suposed to be close to boiling anyway when you make it. The hotter the better and the longer it stays hot enough for drinking and not getting to cold.
Ehh, I would like to see the coffee and cup that takes that long to cool down sufficiently.
In my opinion, and the way many do coffee, is that one uses boiling water (or as close to boiling as you get). Can't get much hotter than that. In no case have I ever had to wait that long to drink the coffee. In my opinion the problem is usually the opposite, it gets cold to fast!!
Actually the EUCD may, or may not apply, depending a bit on how each country implement the directive.
Here we are dealing with accessing the DVD, there is nothing in it that prevents making a copy of the DVD (it will end up as an encrypted copy as well of course), but the "protection" does not prevent copying in any way, only access.
The EUCD deals with circumvention of protection that deals with copyright issues. For example copying which is a right the copyright holder has. Accessing a work is NOT something exlusive to the copyright holder and hence not an issue of copyrights.
If you look at the Swedish implementation (or suggestion for it at least), they make exactly this reasoning and the implementation only deal with protection that deals with copyright rights. Encrypting something for example, is not such a thing (nor is for example region coding, which is also specifically mentioned). Hence you can circumvent or do whatever you want in that regard.
Some EU countries might implement it differently and also include access protection but that is NOT a necessity under the EUCD.
It would possibly be an OK definition if someone actually LOST the intellectuap property in the process. When you copy something, there is no loss of intellectual property.
By the way, what do you mean by "intellectual property"? People toss that arround meaning all kind of things. In your case you seem to mean things that someone holds the copyright on, correct? If so, then say so to avoid confusion.
>What's worse, downloading the CD or shoplifting >it from the store?
Shoplifting since you are removing property in the form of a (physical) CD from the shop. When downloading, you are copying (making an additional copy) of something still in existance at the source after you have downloaded it.
Huge difference in my opinion and the whole reason there is something called copyright laws as oposed to normal laws for example dealing with stealing (which would be applicable in shoplifting since you aren't violating copyright laws when shoplifting).
Copyright? You meant to say trademark, right? I have seen several posts in this thread treat trademark and copyright more or less as the same when in fact it is VERY different things.
I don't know about your country, but in most countries you don't have to register computers you own. Hence it is quite impossible to know which person owns a specific computer.
Ehh, no they can't, you have to appeal in a specific time (we talk weeks here and not many). They can start up a new case though, but then they need to bring in completely new evidence, witnesses and so on.
Sure, he can appeal to the supreeme court. It migth turn down the apepal, but if it is a case of principal interest, and to set precedence, they might take it on. Still, it is not a "best in three" since it doesn't matter if both the lower courts went the same way.
>But many corporations *cough*microsoft*cough* >seem to think otherwise. they grant you a >_license_ rather than giving you the rights to >the thing you just bought.
The noteworthy part here is the "you just bought". That is how software is handled to day in most cases, it *is* sold in shops. Hence it is a sale according to the laws regulating sales and it is thus yours. The fact theat they want you to believe they did not sell it to you is irellevant, since they DO sell it. If they don't want to sell it, they have to do it the proper way, seting up a contract *instead*. They can't first sell it to you and *then* comming and take back what you sold, forcing you to waive the ownership of what you allready bought and making you sign some sort of license.
Using a single variable to have multiple purposes is in general not a good idea and as someone allready point out, have a good chance for buggy code sooner or later. Thus, the variable for the HP of a monster should hold just that, the monster's HP, be it positive or negative (for whatever reason it ends up there). You then have some other variable, flag indicating death, invulnerability and so on.
As an example, what if you suddenly want to actually be able to use negative life for some reason? Perhaps you want to add some system where death occirs only at larger negative values, where a monster would be unconsious, or perhaps in some other state while at negative value, or perhaps allowing death to take time and regeneration as a possible way for a monster to regain life back above 0. Just pick a reason.
Adding that into your code will mean you actually have to go over every single place your code handle life, making sure there isn't any use for special values of the HP. IN addition, you have to change the whole system since you need new ways to indicate invulnerability and so on. Either intriducing the new variable/flag you should have had in the first place, or changing the magic number indicating death to some other negative (or positive value) that you think will never be used as actual HP and hope you don't have to change it again when a monster suddenly is supposed to be able to have that value. It is just asking for trouble and bugs in the future.
Bah, sorry, only managed to copy part of my reply above.
>If someone circumvents AND commits copyright >infringment then they are already violating the >law and the new law is redundant.
You don't have to commit copyright infringement through the circumvention. As the text says, if you circumvention is "inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright", then the circumvention is not allowed. This is the new thing, adding circumvention without a direct infringement to what is not allowed if it do "inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright".
As an example, if there is put in place something that actually DO prevent copying (which is a right belonging to the copyright holder), removing it would now not be allowed since it would facilitate or enable the abolity to copy which is (or could be) a copyright infringement. Without this circumvention prohibition, the actual removal of a copy prevention is perfectly allowed.
Please note that I am not saying the law is a good thing, it is not, just trying to see it as it seems to be meant which is not as broad as people seems to make it.
>It is not a law against infringing! It is a law >against circumventing!
Of course, but read the text I quoted again. The circumvention in itself is not dissalowed, only if it is "inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright".
So there really needs to be a copyright infringement involved or the circumvention is allowed. Since by fast forwarding you won't do anything that is related to copyright infringement, it is allowed to circumvent it.
There is probably some background text acompaning the law proposal, no? It should probably clarify it.The reason I mentioned the swedish proposal is that it is based on the same EU directive and actually HAD that very argument in it, indicating that it would be one proper way to read the EU directive. Just reading the law in itself trying to interpret the exact meaning of the words and intent in it will in many cases NOT help you get to the correct conclusion of what the law really mean.
"where D knows, or has reason to believe, that by so doing he is inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright."
Since when is fast forwarding a copyright infringement? It looks to me that only such rights that has to do with rights protected by copyright laws are covered and I doubt the copyright laws gives the copyright holder an exlusive right to fat forward, no?
Similar reasoning are done in the Swedish proposal for a new copyright laws. Only rights directly related to copyright are covered. Actually fast forwarding is specifically mentioned. As is region coding for example, none of which is copvered by copyright laws and hence not protected by the circumvention since you are not circumveting anything protecting a a coprygith "right".
I might missunderstand the situation in Denmark, but I believe a similar situation might occur in Sweden with its propsed changed copyright law. The issue here would be the right to distribute copies. In general, that right belongs to the copyright holder. However, that right is also generally consumed as soon as a copy is sold. That mean, that the right to distribute a specific copy does no longer belog to the copyright holder after they have sold it.
Now, the consumtion of this right can be global or regional (or whatever the law says). The proposal for the new copyright law in Sweden changes the consumtion from golbal (world wide) to regional (within EU). That is, only a copy sold within EU will have the right of the copyright holder consumed. Thus, any copy sold OUSIDE of EU, will still have the copyright holder as the only one with permision to distribute it (which include resell it and so on).
Since it is doubtfull they will ever sell DVDs in Europe with a region coding not being the one for Europe, the end effect is that you can't resell DVDs with other region codings inside EU since the copyright holder will retain that right.
Not sure if that is the case for Denmark mentioned here though.
That must depend on country then. In Sweden for example you can (and have to) sue the 12 year old child since the parents (or anyone else) is not held responsible for children in cases like this. Basically, no one can be hold accountable for anyone elses action.
Of course, the ammount of money and so on you can get out of a minor is relatively small and decrease by age, so from a 12 year old you probably won't get out much at all. From someone of higher age, lets say 17 year, it is a different matter though.
Everyone seems to think there is always *a* owner to a ocomputer and on top of that, that no one else ever uses that computer. In a typical household there are several persons, so how would you go about telling who in the househild is the guilty one? Perhaps outsiders (friends, family and so on visiting you) is using the computer? It is normally very hard to tie a specific person to a specific time and use of a computer.
>The argument that this is about control and >profit is ridiculous.
Since many of the things "controlled" and protected doesn't have anything to do with copyright, it is not at all ridiculous.
>If people honestly don't >like the way copyright is enforced, then they >can just not buy the copyright holders products.
In many cases it is not about copyright, but about, for example accessing your own property. Or controlling if you can fast forward something and so on. Sure, copyright is all the time expanding and new things are entered into copyright laws so that more thing ARE about copyright, but that is also part of the issue and what complains are about.
>I think any competent programmer would tell you >that any software copy-protection method, and >nearly any hardware copy-protection method CAN >be circumvented. Therefore it became necessary >for those methods to have some force of law >behind them.
Why? What does that add? Copyright infringement is already illegal to start with, so if you circumvent it to do copyright infringement, it is already covered. If you circumvent it and do something that is NOT copyright infringement, why should there be some law added to enforce that? There is really no point.
It is worth noticing that people often discuss circumventing copy protection, when in fact, it is often not copy protection at all, but rather access protection (and other non copying related things).
It seems to me that the DMCA actually forbid circumvention of access protections too, no? Does that mean it also adds access to an exclusive right of the copyright holder? If not, how does such a circumvention have anything to do with copyright?
I have been studying the proposed Swedish changes to its copyright laws so that Sweden can implement the EU directive regarding it. Although it is in many cases not so fun reading, they do have in this area an interesting argumentation. The effective technological system used to protect the work, can ONLY be for protecting rights that are covered by copyright laws. And hence, only those are protected against circumvention. They specifically mention for example region coding on DVDs as NOT being something copyright related and thus it is not such a system that you can't circumvent.
Similarly, simply accessing for example a CD with music you have bought, has nothing to do with copyright and hence something that prevents you using the CD, for example playing it on a computer as opposed to an ordinary music CD player, is again, not about copyright and is not illegal to circumvent.
Finally they argue about protection that is BOTH against copyright related protection (basically copying) AND for example access control or something not copyright related. Since making it illegal to circumvent such a protection would put to large power into the hands of the copyright holder in that they could basically get protection for anything as long as it also had a part protecting a copyright related right, only such protections that is ONLY for copyright related issues, are made illegal to circumvent. They also add that the copyright holder has the power to choose whatever protection system he wants, and if he wants protection against the circumvention, he has to choose something that is ONLY for copyright protection.
This sounds relatively reasonable to me given the circumstances.
Ohh, Google? Who turn into finnish just because the main company is finnish while I work in Sweden for a swedish daughter company? Yeah, works perfectly, right.
For obvious reasons it is better to handle these things on each users computer.
Another obvious problem with the "site finder" is that it has mostly no clue in what language a user uses and hence will probably pop up an english search page for example, regardless of what language the user has. Hardly something good.
Slashdot Mirror
One difference in civil cases, as far as I have understood it, is that in US, each one pay his own costs, right? Which can be costly, just to defend versus "stupid" cases. In Sweden for example, the loser pay it all so to speak. That has some advatages but also some drawbacks.
When I order coffee, I want, and expect it to be HOT. If not, I will complain. There is no such thing as too hit since you are suposed to be close to boiling anyway when you make it. The hotter the better and the longer it stays hot enough for drinking and not getting to cold.
Ehh, I would like to see the coffee and cup that takes that long to cool down sufficiently.
In my opinion, and the way many do coffee, is that one uses boiling water (or as close to boiling as you get). Can't get much hotter than that. In no case have I ever had to wait that long to drink the coffee. In my opinion the problem is usually the opposite, it gets cold to fast!!
Actually the EUCD may, or may not apply, depending a bit on how each country implement the directive.
Here we are dealing with accessing the DVD, there is nothing in it that prevents making a copy of the DVD (it will end up as an encrypted copy as well of course), but the "protection" does not prevent copying in any way, only access.
The EUCD deals with circumvention of protection that deals with copyright issues. For example copying which is a right the copyright holder has. Accessing a work is NOT something exlusive to the copyright holder and hence not an issue of copyrights.
If you look at the Swedish implementation (or suggestion for it at least), they make exactly this reasoning and the implementation only deal with protection that deals with copyright rights. Encrypting something for example, is not such a thing (nor is for example region coding, which is also specifically mentioned). Hence you can circumvent or do whatever you want in that regard.
Some EU countries might implement it differently and also include access protection but that is NOT a necessity under the EUCD.
It would possibly be an OK definition if someone actually LOST the intellectuap property in the process. When you copy something, there is no loss of intellectual property.
By the way, what do you mean by "intellectual property"? People toss that arround meaning all kind of things. In your case you seem to mean things that someone holds the copyright on, correct? If so, then say so to avoid confusion.
>What's worse, downloading the CD or shoplifting >it from the store?
Shoplifting since you are removing property in the form of a (physical) CD from the shop. When downloading, you are copying (making an additional copy) of something still in existance at the source after you have downloaded it.
Huge difference in my opinion and the whole reason there is something called copyright laws as oposed to normal laws for example dealing with stealing (which would be applicable in shoplifting since you aren't violating copyright laws when shoplifting).
Copyright? You meant to say trademark, right? I have seen several posts in this thread treat trademark and copyright more or less as the same when in fact it is VERY different things.
>(hence, the registered owner).
I don't know about your country, but in most countries you don't have to register computers you own. Hence it is quite impossible to know which person owns a specific computer.
>Theft occured under their account name.
From a point of law, it is irrelevant whos account is used. Accounts can't comit copyright infringement, only real people (or companies) can.
Ehh, no they can't, you have to appeal in a specific time (we talk weeks here and not many). They can start up a new case though, but then they need to bring in completely new evidence, witnesses and so on.
Sure, he can appeal to the supreeme court. It migth turn down the apepal, but if it is a case of principal interest, and to set precedence, they might take it on. Still, it is not a "best in three" since it doesn't matter if both the lower courts went the same way.
>wait until 9PM to post this? More people would
>see it if you posted it tomorrow morning.
Yes, the whole world lives in your time zone too. besides, do you only read news that is a few hours old??? To bad for you.
>But many corporations *cough*microsoft*cough*
>seem to think otherwise. they grant you a
>_license_ rather than giving you the rights to
>the thing you just bought.
The noteworthy part here is the "you just bought". That is how software is handled to day in most cases, it *is* sold in shops. Hence it is a sale according to the laws regulating sales and it is thus yours. The fact theat they want you to believe they did not sell it to you is irellevant, since they DO sell it. If they don't want to sell it, they have to do it the proper way, seting up a contract *instead*. They can't first sell it to you and *then* comming and take back what you sold, forcing you to waive the ownership of what you allready bought and making you sign some sort of license.
Using a single variable to have multiple purposes is in general not a good idea and as someone allready point out, have a good chance for buggy code sooner or later. Thus, the variable for the HP of a monster should hold just that, the monster's HP, be it positive or negative (for whatever reason it ends up there). You then have some other variable, flag indicating death, invulnerability and so on.
As an example, what if you suddenly want to actually be able to use negative life for some reason? Perhaps you want to add some system where death occirs only at larger negative values, where a monster would be unconsious, or perhaps in some other state while at negative value, or perhaps allowing death to take time and regeneration as a possible way for a monster to regain life back above 0. Just pick a reason.
Adding that into your code will mean you actually have to go over every single place your code handle life, making sure there isn't any use for special values of the HP. IN addition, you have to change the whole system since you need new ways to indicate invulnerability and so on. Either intriducing the new variable/flag you should have had in the first place, or changing the magic number indicating death to some other negative (or positive value) that you think will never be used as actual HP and hope you don't have to change it again when a monster suddenly is supposed to be able to have that value. It is just asking for trouble and bugs in the future.
Bah, sorry, only managed to copy part of my reply above.
>If someone circumvents AND commits copyright
>infringment then they are already violating the
>law and the new law is redundant.
You don't have to commit copyright infringement through the circumvention. As the text says, if you circumvention is "inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright", then the circumvention is not allowed. This is the new thing, adding circumvention without a direct infringement to what is not allowed if it do "inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright".
As an example, if there is put in place something that actually DO prevent copying (which is a right belonging to the copyright holder), removing it would now not be allowed since it would facilitate or enable the abolity to copy which is (or could be) a copyright infringement. Without this circumvention prohibition, the actual removal of a copy prevention is perfectly allowed.
Please note that I am not saying the law is a good thing, it is not, just trying to see it as it seems to be meant which is not as broad as people seems to make it.
>It is not a law against infringing! It is a law
>against circumventing!
Of course, but read the text I quoted again. The circumvention in itself is not dissalowed, only if it is "inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright".
So there really needs to be a copyright infringement involved or the circumvention is allowed. Since by fast forwarding you won't do anything that is related to copyright infringement, it is allowed to circumvent it.
There is probably some background text acompaning the law proposal, no? It should probably clarify it.The reason I mentioned the swedish proposal is that it is based on the same EU directive and actually HAD that very argument in it, indicating that it would be one proper way to read the EU directive. Just reading the law in itself trying to interpret the exact meaning of the words and intent in it will in many cases NOT help you get to the correct conclusion of what the law really mean.
Ehh, it states:
"where D knows, or has reason to believe, that by so doing he is inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of copyright."
Since when is fast forwarding a copyright infringement? It looks to me that only such rights that has to do with rights protected by copyright laws are covered and I doubt the copyright laws gives the copyright holder an exlusive right to fat forward, no?
Similar reasoning are done in the Swedish proposal for a new copyright laws. Only rights directly related to copyright are covered. Actually fast forwarding is specifically mentioned. As is region coding for example, none of which is copvered by copyright laws and hence not protected by the circumvention since you are not circumveting anything protecting a a coprygith "right".
I might missunderstand the situation in Denmark, but I believe a similar situation might occur in Sweden with its propsed changed copyright law. The issue here would be the right to distribute copies. In general, that right belongs to the copyright holder. However, that right is also generally consumed as soon as a copy is sold. That mean, that the right to distribute a specific copy does no longer belog to the copyright holder after they have sold it.
Now, the consumtion of this right can be global or regional (or whatever the law says). The proposal for the new copyright law in Sweden changes the consumtion from golbal (world wide) to regional (within EU). That is, only a copy sold within EU will have the right of the copyright holder consumed. Thus, any copy sold OUSIDE of EU, will still have the copyright holder as the only one with permision to distribute it (which include resell it and so on).
Since it is doubtfull they will ever sell DVDs in Europe with a region coding not being the one for Europe, the end effect is that you can't resell DVDs with other region codings inside EU since the copyright holder will retain that right.
Not sure if that is the case for Denmark mentioned here though.
>You can't sue a 12 year old...
That must depend on country then. In Sweden for example you can (and have to) sue the 12 year old child since the parents (or anyone else) is not held responsible for children in cases like this. Basically, no one can be hold accountable for anyone elses action.
Of course, the ammount of money and so on you can get out of a minor is relatively small and decrease by age, so from a 12 year old you probably won't get out much at all. From someone of higher age, lets say 17 year, it is a different matter though.
Everyone seems to think there is always *a* owner to a ocomputer and on top of that, that no one else ever uses that computer. In a typical household there are several persons, so how would you go about telling who in the househild is the guilty one? Perhaps outsiders (friends, family and so on visiting you) is using the computer? It is normally very hard to tie a specific person to a specific time and use of a computer.
>The argument that this is about control and
>profit is ridiculous.
Since many of the things "controlled" and protected doesn't have anything to do with copyright, it is not at all ridiculous.
>If people honestly don't
>like the way copyright is enforced, then they
>can just not buy the copyright holders products.
In many cases it is not about copyright, but about, for example accessing your own property. Or controlling if you can fast forward something and so on. Sure, copyright is all the time expanding and new things are entered into copyright laws so that more thing ARE about copyright, but that is also part of the issue and what complains are about.
>I think any competent programmer would tell you
>that any software copy-protection method, and
>nearly any hardware copy-protection method CAN
>be circumvented. Therefore it became necessary
>for those methods to have some force of law
>behind them.
Why? What does that add? Copyright infringement is already illegal to start with, so if you circumvent it to do copyright infringement, it is already covered. If you circumvent it and do something that is NOT copyright infringement, why should there be some law added to enforce that? There is really no point.
It is worth noticing that people often discuss circumventing copy protection, when in fact, it is often not copy protection at all, but rather access protection (and other non copying related things).
It seems to me that the DMCA actually forbid circumvention of access protections too, no? Does that mean it also adds access to an exclusive right of the copyright holder? If not, how does such a circumvention have anything to do with copyright?
I have been studying the proposed Swedish changes to its copyright laws so that Sweden can implement the EU directive regarding it. Although it is in many cases not so fun reading, they do have in this area an interesting argumentation. The effective technological system used to protect the work, can ONLY be for protecting rights that are covered by copyright laws. And hence, only those are protected against circumvention. They specifically mention for example region coding on DVDs as NOT being something copyright related and thus it is not such a system that you can't circumvent.
Similarly, simply accessing for example a CD with music you have bought, has nothing to do with copyright and hence something that prevents you using the CD, for example playing it on a computer as opposed to an ordinary music CD player, is again, not about copyright and is not illegal to circumvent.
Finally they argue about protection that is BOTH against copyright related protection (basically copying) AND for example access control or something not copyright related. Since making it illegal to circumvent such a protection would put to large power into the hands of the copyright holder in that they could basically get protection for anything as long as it also had a part protecting a copyright related right, only such protections that is ONLY for copyright related issues, are made illegal to circumvent. They also add that the copyright holder has the power to choose whatever protection system he wants, and if he wants protection against the circumvention, he has to choose something that is ONLY for copyright protection.
This sounds relatively reasonable to me given the circumstances.
I don't think we are routed through Finland and it should (if anything) be a .com address you find. In any case, it shows the problems.
Ohh, Google? Who turn into finnish just because the main company is finnish while I work in Sweden for a swedish daughter company? Yeah, works perfectly, right.
For obvious reasons it is better to handle these things on each users computer.
And if your language is not the one Verisign used on that page, you might not even have a clue what is going on.
Another obvious problem with the "site finder" is that it has mostly no clue in what language a user uses and hence will probably pop up an english search page for example, regardless of what language the user has. Hardly something good.