Ehh, you mix up percentages and tax values and are going forth and backwards completely messing up the values. The "moms" added is actually 25% of the non taxed price. It means of the final price, 20% is "moms". SO if someone wants to sell something for 100 SEK, they have to add 25 SEK in moms with a final price of 125 SEK. The tax (25 SEK) is then 20% of the final price.
There DO exist tax on tax though. The best example is gas for the car. There exists a fixed (in cost) energy tax and a fixed carbon dioxide tax. On top of that you add the sale tax (moms).
>In any case, if you buy a pirated cd, all the >same legal issues apply as if you downloaded it >off the web. It does not magically become ok >because you bought it.
I never said that. However, the actual USE of it, is not the issue. It would be the buying or downloading of it that would be a problem. Also, when you buy it, you have an additional element of a purchase which you don't have while downloading. It is also the one selling it that are the one commiting the copyright infringement, not the buyer. The buyer isn't compying, selling or distributing the copy made, the seller is.
Hmm, yeah, perhaps we do agree and I just did not understand you properly.
Regarding music and playing it. As far as I know a player won't compy the whole music into the memory, do it really? I can imagine a few bits (well a whole bunch) being processed in memory while it is being played, but to then leave it in memory seems unnessecary and need far more memory than most CD players probably have. Still, arguing that such a thing is copying would be like arguing your brain has a copy of a book you read and really silly (which of course has nothing to do with how the law would actually be interpreted by a court of course).
Some countries copyright laws actually DO provide specific permision to make copies needed to actually use a work (which would include temporary copies in ram for example) and even allows for such thing as correcting errors. Don't have the actual swedish copyright law here but something along those lines are in there.
>To make a copy of the music to your hard drive or >another CD for your personal use is also under >fair use. However, it would probably not be if >you borrowed a CD from your friend, copied all >the music, then gave the CD back.
On top of that, swedish copyright law, for example, at least for the moment, allows making copies for "private" use, which has through court cases been established to include making copies not only for your self but also for relatives and close friends. Thus, at least here in Sweden the equivalency to fair use includes copying a music CD for a friend. This does not apply to commputer software though although the allowance for copies needed to use the program exists and I would guess it is to not have problems with such "you make a copy in RAM when you use it". So no issues of using it exists.
>I have MP3s of songs from a certain album. I >bought a used CD of the same album. The MP3s are >probably still unauthorized copies, so I'd >probably have to make my own copies from the CD I >bought to make everything kosher.
A sort of loophole (this is really geting abit off topic) currently exists in swedish copyright law, but it will for sure be removed soon. The way it currently stands, the provision for making copies for private use does not consider from where the copy is made. Hence, downloading, say, mp3 files is OK if it is for private use. You can still not go on and distribute them and so on, and the one originally sharing it so you could download it is still breaking the copyright law, but actually downloading is OK, and the copy (no matter were it comes from) is perfectly legal as long as it continues to be for private use.
Not sure how it will be fixed though, possesion of wrongly made copies been made illegal seems a bit going to far, but who knows what they come up with.
Even more silly is the CD check on some dictionaries. I relative of mine works with translations and has several legitimate bought copies of dictionaries he wants to use. The probelm is, each one requires the CD to be inserted to work. SO if he want to look up some word in the dictionaries, he has to sit switching CDs 3 or 4 times to look it up in each one (or if he have been using some other CD in-between writing). Obviously that is redicilous and doesn't work! Seems the ones making them doesn't understand the problem though.
>Well no, if it was cracked you don't have a >right to run it, sorry buddy..
Where does this "right to use" that pops up all the time come from? What makes people think that one need some permision to "use" something? I can't tell for every country in the world, but in most you don't need any special permision to use anything, nor does the law say so either. There is no need for a permision to use a car, use a book or anything else. Of course, if the car is not yours, you might be accused of stealing the car for example, but the actual USE is not a crime. Same with a book, READING a book is never a crime. Assume someone leaves a book open on the street, you pass by and read it (without picking it up to avoid issues like stealing and such), that is not a crime nor a violation of any law, not even copyright law).
Using some software is simimlar, you can't be accused of "using" it, since there is no law preventing that. You can be charged of theft if you walk into a store and grab a copy of it, but the theft is the crime, not running the program afterwards. Similary you can be accused of copyright infringement if you copy some program in violation of copyright laws, but then running that copy is not in itself an infringement or prevented by copyright laws (or other laws).
For some strange reason people seem to think though that one need some special sort of permision to "run" a program though, wonder where this comes from.
Many countries have laws that specifically prevents agreements that remove such responsability. True, when it comes to non consumer sales, the restrictions might not be as hard though.
>They've got every right to not grant you a >purchase if you're going to agree to the >contract.
Sure, if they asked you to signe a contract FIRST. However, once you get home and install, they have allready sold it to you. They (or anyone else that sells you something), can't come afterwards demanding additional contracts. Imagine the next time you byt a refrigirator and when you get home and open the door, there is a big paper over the power switch telling that by pusing the switch you agree to...... Doesn't work, just as it doesn't work with a program.
All that aside, even assuming it would work, many countries has specific laws that doesn't allow someone to "contract away" responsability. That is, it doesn't matter if you sign a contract (before or after the purchase) that the seller doesn't have any responsability, they still have it since such a part of a contract is not valid. Often such laws are related to consumer sales though and might not apply or not be as hard when it is a non consumer sale (such as selling to another company).
I have no idea from were you have got those silly ideas of needing a "licens" or other permision to play a CD. Sure, content providers and such might want you to believe so, but that does not make it true.
Buying and selling things are usually quite well regulated and defined in sale laws (or consumer sale laws) or similar laws (probably differ some between countries). It is really quite simple though, you pay some money and get some item in return. For specifics such as exactly when the item is transfered and such, check the details of the laws. After the sale, th eitem is owned by whoever bought it (of course).
Unless some additional contract or agreement was made TOGETHER with the sale (like for example when you rent something where a contract is typically made indicating you actually rent and not buy something), there is nothing additional to consider. It is now yours, be it a car, a hammer, a book or a CD with music. It is now yours. ONe can of course do whatever one want with what one owns (unless there is some specific law preventing it, like saying, it is not allowed to use your matches to set someone elses house o fire for example). There is no law that says you can't play a music CD without some permision though.
SOmeone might thing that copyright laws might have something to say here and that copyright laws might prevent the use of a music CD without some sort of license. But that is not the case. Copyright laws only prevents a few specific actions by giving the copyright holder the (almost) exclusive right to perform them. Examples are making additional copies to distribute and public performance. Ordinary use, such as listening to a CD, breaking it in half, throwing it out the window, giving it away as a present to a friend, or even selling it, is NOT among the exlusive things only a copyright holder might do. It is important to not confuse holding the copyright to something and owning it. Someone can own a book or a CD, yet not hold the copyright. For some reason, people seem to confuse that and believe that one can't own something if one doesn't hold the copyright to it. Strange.
No problem. I just carry a piece of paper on the front that says "By letting me enter the cinema, you agree to.......". Alternatively one can have one saying "By selling me a ticket....". One can attached it on the chest or simply vaguely waiving it in the hand while buying the ticket or entering the cinema.
>Well, in either case, I stand by my point. The >software in a system isn't yours to do with as >you wish. It's copyrighted.
So? Copyright only prevents me from making copies (even though there are some exceptions where I CAN make copies), making public performances (well, hardly that applicable to software although running it in, say an internet cafe perhaps could be covered under that) and a few similar things. Nothing else. That is, everything else (inclduing decompiling) is not at all covered or prevented by something having a copyright and as such, all those things I can do as I wish.
Unless you made some special agreement in the shop when you bought the hardware, then yes, you indeed own that copy of the software too. Of course, you don't get to own any copyright to it, but you do own the copy of it, just as you own a book you buy despite not owning the copyright to it.
>If you buy an HP computer (with windows on it), >you can't decompile windows. It's in the EULA
Lets assume EULAs are valid. The simple sollution:
* Buy HP with Windows (you now own a computer and a copy of Windows).
* Don't agree to the EULA if it for some reason should be presented to you.
* Decompile your copy of Windows.
Unless copyright laws forbid it (and they generally only deal with copying, public performance and such) you can do everything else. Perhaps some other law in some countries might dictate that decompiling is illegal, but then, EULA or not doesn't matter to start with.
Actually, by use I mean how I "use" the specific copy I own. When it comes to a book it mean I can read it were ever I want, I can burn it up, toss it out of the window, give it away to someone else, sell it to someone else, tear the pages out of the book one by one (and rearanging them in whatever order I want) and so on. For computer programs it means the same thing and so on. People tend to believe that copyright prevents USE (as in ordinary use of items you own, expamples of which I gave) and is not allowed unless given special permision. Often claiming that you actually need a EULA for example to be allowed to "use" your computer program and so on.
I agree that copying, and more evidently public performance is also a sort of use and that may have been confusing. SOrry about that.
So yes, in those "uses" copyright laws give the copyright owner exclusive rights, you must get permision, but such uses are ver limited and thus a general statement that "you have no right to use it without permision" is not correct in most cases.
>You're saying that if I write a program on my >computer, not intended for distribution, you can >copy and use it, and I have no remedy under the >law. Is use of a computer program defined >as "public performance," or is it more like >reading a book?
So, no, you can't copy it since it is not allowed by copyright law. However, actually running (and using) the program would NOT be prevented by the copyright law (I could possibly commit other crimes in doing so, like breaking into your house to get to the computer though).
Similary, if someone writes a poem on a piece of paper it would not be illegal or prevented by copyright laws for anyone to read it. No special permision is needed. At times, this seems contrary to what typical content providers wants you to believe. That is, they want you to believe that unless you aquire a special license you are not allowed to listen to some music or run a computer program. That is not so.
>For all practical purposes, you have no right to >my code except those that I grant.
Again, I have ALL rights, except those that copyright law restirct in granting you an exclusive right to it, and the only such rights regard copying, public performance and a few other such cases. ALL other "rights" are simply not handled or prevented by copyright laws and thus allowed although it might at times be hard to do it without breaking other laws, such as having to break into your house to use a program only in existance in your home computer. However, the actual use of the program would not be illegal in anyway.
>As for your examples, I think you do need >permission from the copyright holder if you want >to copy books and give them away. Start copying >programs, CDs and books and give them away on a >website, and we'll see how long that lasts.
I can't see any example in the text you commented were I said you are allowed to make copies without permision, especially not by doing it over the web. Actually, I said that copying is one of the few "uses" that IS restricted by copyright laws (although in Sweden, the copyright laws for example do give you the right to make copies and give to close friends and family without needing any permision). Perhaps you refere to some other post of mine here with those examples, otherwise you lost me there.
Just because the GPL was drafted in US, does not mean US law govern it. If you want to apply the GPL in some country, that county's laws apply to it. FOrtunately copyright laws are quite similar in most countries, but differences DO exist.
>Fair use rights are much more vague than that. >THey are of course not a blanket right to do >anything, but they are also not simply to make >backups. (They are not, by the way, to give >copies to friends sand family. USEing the >software does not infringe copyright unless you >copy it.)
As allready said, you are arguing, it appears, by assuming your own countries law applies everywhere. In Sweden for example, the equivalency to "fair use", although it is actually part of the actual copyright laws, gives you permision to make copies for "private use". This private use DO include copies to family and close friends. So, yes, here it is allowed to copy a music CD you own and give the copy to a friend of yours. This copying for private use does not apply to computer software though.
>...but the copyright is still mine, and I can >dictate terms of use for my work as long as it's >in effect.
and
>Under copyright, law, you have ABSOLUTELY NO >RIGHTS to a work EXCEPT those granted by the >copyright holder.
This is not correct. Copyright laws do NOT dictate use. Copyright laws hanld only a few specific things, such as copying, distribution (of additional works usually), public performance and such. Actual USE is not at all covered.
It is very important also to realise the difference between the actual "item", like the boom, or software program, and the "content" of it. The copyright governs the content. As such, I can own a book, and it is mine, yet I might not hodl the copyright to the content. There is NOTHING in the copyright laws that prevents me from using the book or program I might own. And there is no need for any special permision from the copyright owner to use it. You do need permision from the copyright owner if you want to make copies to give away for example or if you want to read a book for the public somewhere and so on.
So no, it is not correct to say "you have absolutely no right", the correct way would be to say that one has ALL the rights, except a few, specified in copyright laws, that are exclusive to the copyright owner. And note, there are several exceptions to the exclusiveness as well.
>Because GPL code is copyrighted, the owners of >the copyrights have the final say in how the >code can be used.
No, copyright does not give you the right to tell how something is USED. It gives you an exclusive right (with some exceptions) to make copies, derivative work, public performnace and such. That is is. It does not cover general use of a work, even though many software, music and film providers wants to make you believe otherwise.
>Why? If GPL fails your code will automatically >revert to normal copyright wich AFAIK requires >your permission to use it in any circumstance.
I always thought of thr GPL as a such a permision. You normally can't distribute works or derivate works of someone without a permision. The GPL gives you (limitied, in that you must include the source) permision to do so. So, how can a permision "fail" and be said to not be valid? It is only when one try to make GPL into some sort of contract or license that it gets bad since there really is no agreement in the sense contract law requires. But if one look at it as a blanket permision given to anyone that wants so, to create derivative work and distribute it with the source, I see no problem and no way to not "uphold" it in a court or whatever.
>A finding like that would probably be beyond the >ability of any judge at this point. It would >destroy lots of very good and useful law that >suggests that acceptance of a contract is >implied by acting in accordance with the >contract.
Out of curiosity, does such a law actually exists? And if so, which country do you talk about? When I studied contract law (admitadly in a small course that touched many areas of laws but none really thoroughly) there were specific "rules" for how to enter a contract but no mention of what you just said.
>The trick is prooving who caused the effect. >It's not as simple as prooving who was behind >the wheel of a car.
It gets even more complicated if several people live in the house (or if you can claim friends or family have been in your house). To actually prove who was the one responsible in such cases is even more difficulty.
Ohh, and we are not discussing the responsability versus the ISP here, that is in most cases whoever signed the contract, but criminal/civil responsability which is not an issue versus your ISP but versus the state/whoever.
>Once again, they made 2 distinct games and a >bunch of derivative clones based on those two >platforms.
OK, so lets accept that statement of yours. That implies that they are quite good at making derivative clones since they have succeeded many times at it (and not really failed). Since Warcraft online could thus also be seen as a derivative clone, chances are they might be very successfull in my opinion!!
>If you sell your used hardware to someone, then >from the corporate viewpoint, YOU are depriving >them of their right to sell NEW hardware to that >person
Ehh, yes, that is what RIAA and other "content providers" call theft isn't it (and all others that think copyrigth infringement equals theft). That is, you deprive them of a possible income, hence they lose something and it is theft. SO I guess soon they will argue second hand shops are actuall big illegal thievery shops. Sigh.
There really aren't "European laws". There are directives and such for the countries to follow. The individial countries has to adopt them into their own laws (which might be done differently in different countries). It is still the individual laws of each country that applies untl they are changed. One can take the COUNTRY to the court for not implementing the directives and such, but you can't charge individuals and such for not following a directive that has not been yet incorporated into a law.
Slashdot Mirror
Ehh, you mix up percentages and tax values and are going forth and backwards completely messing up the values. The "moms" added is actually 25% of the non taxed price. It means of the final price, 20% is "moms". SO if someone wants to sell something for 100 SEK, they have to add 25 SEK in moms with a final price of 125 SEK. The tax (25 SEK) is then 20% of the final price.
There DO exist tax on tax though. The best example is gas for the car. There exists a fixed (in cost) energy tax and a fixed carbon dioxide tax. On top of that you add the sale tax (moms).
So, why do we need both patent AND copyright for software? Both basically serve the same purpose (although there are of course differences).
>Congratulations, your anal.
Whatever. I'll refrain from such language.
>In any case, if you buy a pirated cd, all the
>same legal issues apply as if you downloaded it
>off the web. It does not magically become ok
>because you bought it.
I never said that. However, the actual USE of it, is not the issue. It would be the buying or downloading of it that would be a problem. Also, when you buy it, you have an additional element of a purchase which you don't have while downloading. It is also the one selling it that are the one commiting the copyright infringement, not the buyer. The buyer isn't compying, selling or distributing the copy made, the seller is.
Hmm, yeah, perhaps we do agree and I just did not understand you properly.
Regarding music and playing it. As far as I know a player won't compy the whole music into the memory, do it really? I can imagine a few bits (well a whole bunch) being processed in memory while it is being played, but to then leave it in memory seems unnessecary and need far more memory than most CD players probably have. Still, arguing that such a thing is copying would be like arguing your brain has a copy of a book you read and really silly (which of course has nothing to do with how the law would actually be interpreted by a court of course).
Some countries copyright laws actually DO provide specific permision to make copies needed to actually use a work (which would include temporary copies in ram for example) and even allows for such thing as correcting errors. Don't have the actual swedish copyright law here but something along those lines are in there.
>To make a copy of the music to your hard drive or
>another CD for your personal use is also under
>fair use. However, it would probably not be if
>you borrowed a CD from your friend, copied all
>the music, then gave the CD back.
On top of that, swedish copyright law, for example, at least for the moment, allows making copies for "private" use, which has through court cases been established to include making copies not only for your self but also for relatives and close friends. Thus, at least here in Sweden the equivalency to fair use includes copying a music CD for a friend. This does not apply to commputer software though although the allowance for copies needed to use the program exists and I would guess it is to not have problems with such "you make a copy in RAM when you use it". So no issues of using it exists.
>I have MP3s of songs from a certain album. I
>bought a used CD of the same album. The MP3s are
>probably still unauthorized copies, so I'd
>probably have to make my own copies from the CD I
>bought to make everything kosher.
A sort of loophole (this is really geting abit off topic) currently exists in swedish copyright law, but it will for sure be removed soon. The way it currently stands, the provision for making copies for private use does not consider from where the copy is made. Hence, downloading, say, mp3 files is OK if it is for private use. You can still not go on and distribute them and so on, and the one originally sharing it so you could download it is still breaking the copyright law, but actually downloading is OK, and the copy (no matter were it comes from) is perfectly legal as long as it continues to be for private use.
Not sure how it will be fixed though, possesion of wrongly made copies been made illegal seems a bit going to far, but who knows what they come up with.
Even more silly is the CD check on some dictionaries. I relative of mine works with translations and has several legitimate bought copies of dictionaries he wants to use. The probelm is, each one requires the CD to be inserted to work. SO if he want to look up some word in the dictionaries, he has to sit switching CDs 3 or 4 times to look it up in each one (or if he have been using some other CD in-between writing). Obviously that is redicilous and doesn't work! Seems the ones making them doesn't understand the problem though.
>Well no, if it was cracked you don't have a
>right to run it, sorry buddy..
Where does this "right to use" that pops up all the time come from? What makes people think that one need some permision to "use" something? I can't tell for every country in the world, but in most you don't need any special permision to use anything, nor does the law say so either. There is no need for a permision to use a car, use a book or anything else. Of course, if the car is not yours, you might be accused of stealing the car for example, but the actual USE is not a crime. Same with a book, READING a book is never a crime. Assume someone leaves a book open on the street, you pass by and read it (without picking it up to avoid issues like stealing and such), that is not a crime nor a violation of any law, not even copyright law).
Using some software is simimlar, you can't be accused of "using" it, since there is no law preventing that. You can be charged of theft if you walk into a store and grab a copy of it, but the theft is the crime, not running the program afterwards. Similary you can be accused of copyright infringement if you copy some program in violation of copyright laws, but then running that copy is not in itself an infringement or prevented by copyright laws (or other laws).
For some strange reason people seem to think though that one need some special sort of permision to "run" a program though, wonder where this comes from.
Many countries have laws that specifically prevents agreements that remove such responsability. True, when it comes to non consumer sales, the restrictions might not be as hard though.
>They've got every right to not grant you a
>purchase if you're going to agree to the
>contract.
Sure, if they asked you to signe a contract FIRST. However, once you get home and install, they have allready sold it to you. They (or anyone else that sells you something), can't come afterwards demanding additional contracts. Imagine the next time you byt a refrigirator and when you get home and open the door, there is a big paper over the power switch telling that by pusing the switch you agree to...... Doesn't work, just as it doesn't work with a program.
All that aside, even assuming it would work, many countries has specific laws that doesn't allow someone to "contract away" responsability. That is, it doesn't matter if you sign a contract (before or after the purchase) that the seller doesn't have any responsability, they still have it since such a part of a contract is not valid. Often such laws are related to consumer sales though and might not apply or not be as hard when it is a non consumer sale (such as selling to another company).
I have no idea from were you have got those silly ideas of needing a "licens" or other permision to play a CD. Sure, content providers and such might want you to believe so, but that does not make it true.
Buying and selling things are usually quite well regulated and defined in sale laws (or consumer sale laws) or similar laws (probably differ some between countries). It is really quite simple though, you pay some money and get some item in return. For specifics such as exactly when the item is transfered and such, check the details of the laws. After the sale, th eitem is owned by whoever bought it (of course).
Unless some additional contract or agreement was made TOGETHER with the sale (like for example when you rent something where a contract is typically made indicating you actually rent and not buy something), there is nothing additional to consider. It is now yours, be it a car, a hammer, a book or a CD with music. It is now yours. ONe can of course do whatever one want with what one owns (unless there is some specific law preventing it, like saying, it is not allowed to use your matches to set someone elses house o fire for example). There is no law that says you can't play a music CD without some permision though.
SOmeone might thing that copyright laws might have something to say here and that copyright laws might prevent the use of a music CD without some sort of license. But that is not the case. Copyright laws only prevents a few specific actions by giving the copyright holder the (almost) exclusive right to perform them. Examples are making additional copies to distribute and public performance. Ordinary use, such as listening to a CD, breaking it in half, throwing it out the window, giving it away as a present to a friend, or even selling it, is NOT among the exlusive things only a copyright holder might do. It is important to not confuse holding the copyright to something and owning it. Someone can own a book or a CD, yet not hold the copyright. For some reason, people seem to confuse that and believe that one can't own something if one doesn't hold the copyright to it. Strange.
No problem. I just carry a piece of paper on the front that says "By letting me enter the cinema, you agree to.......". Alternatively one can have one saying "By selling me a ticket....". One can attached it on the chest or simply vaguely waiving it in the hand while buying the ticket or entering the cinema.
>Well, in either case, I stand by my point. The
>software in a system isn't yours to do with as
>you wish. It's copyrighted.
So? Copyright only prevents me from making copies (even though there are some exceptions where I CAN make copies), making public performances (well, hardly that applicable to software although running it in, say an internet cafe perhaps could be covered under that) and a few similar things. Nothing else. That is, everything else (inclduing decompiling) is not at all covered or prevented by something having a copyright and as such, all those things I can do as I wish.
>But not the software in it.
Unless you made some special agreement in the shop when you bought the hardware, then yes, you indeed own that copy of the software too. Of course, you don't get to own any copyright to it, but you do own the copy of it, just as you own a book you buy despite not owning the copyright to it.
>If you buy an HP computer (with windows on it),
>you can't decompile windows. It's in the EULA
Lets assume EULAs are valid. The simple sollution:
* Buy HP with Windows (you now own a computer and a copy of Windows).
* Don't agree to the EULA if it for some reason should be presented to you.
* Decompile your copy of Windows.
Unless copyright laws forbid it (and they generally only deal with copying, public performance and such) you can do everything else. Perhaps some other law in some countries might dictate that decompiling is illegal, but then, EULA or not doesn't matter to start with.
No problem, I was a bit confused.
Actually, by use I mean how I "use" the specific copy I own. When it comes to a book it mean I can read it were ever I want, I can burn it up, toss it out of the window, give it away to someone else, sell it to someone else, tear the pages out of the book one by one (and rearanging them in whatever order I want) and so on. For computer programs it means the same thing and so on. People tend to believe that copyright prevents USE (as in ordinary use of items you own, expamples of which I gave) and is not allowed unless given special permision. Often claiming that you actually need a EULA for example to be allowed to "use" your computer program and so on.
I agree that copying, and more evidently public performance is also a sort of use and that may have been confusing. SOrry about that.
So yes, in those "uses" copyright laws give the copyright owner exclusive rights, you must get permision, but such uses are ver limited and thus a general statement that "you have no right to use it without permision" is not correct in most cases.
>You're saying that if I write a program on my
>computer, not intended for distribution, you can
>copy and use it, and I have no remedy under the
>law. Is use of a computer program defined
>as "public performance," or is it more like
>reading a book?
So, no, you can't copy it since it is not allowed by copyright law. However, actually running (and using) the program would NOT be prevented by the copyright law (I could possibly commit other crimes in doing so, like breaking into your house to get to the computer though).
Similary, if someone writes a poem on a piece of paper it would not be illegal or prevented by copyright laws for anyone to read it. No special permision is needed. At times, this seems contrary to what typical content providers wants you to believe. That is, they want you to believe that unless you aquire a special license you are not allowed to listen to some music or run a computer program. That is not so.
>For all practical purposes, you have no right to
>my code except those that I grant.
Again, I have ALL rights, except those that copyright law restirct in granting you an exclusive right to it, and the only such rights regard copying, public performance and a few other such cases. ALL other "rights" are simply not handled or prevented by copyright laws and thus allowed although it might at times be hard to do it without breaking other laws, such as having to break into your house to use a program only in existance in your home computer. However, the actual use of the program would not be illegal in anyway.
>As for your examples, I think you do need
>permission from the copyright holder if you want
>to copy books and give them away. Start copying
>programs, CDs and books and give them away on a
>website, and we'll see how long that lasts.
I can't see any example in the text you commented were I said you are allowed to make copies without permision, especially not by doing it over the web. Actually, I said that copying is one of the few "uses" that IS restricted by copyright laws (although in Sweden, the copyright laws for example do give you the right to make copies and give to close friends and family without needing any permision). Perhaps you refere to some other post of mine here with those examples, otherwise you lost me there.
Just because the GPL was drafted in US, does not mean US law govern it. If you want to apply the GPL in some country, that county's laws apply to it. FOrtunately copyright laws are quite similar in most countries, but differences DO exist.
>Fair use rights are much more vague than that.
>THey are of course not a blanket right to do
>anything, but they are also not simply to make
>backups. (They are not, by the way, to give
>copies to friends sand family. USEing the
>software does not infringe copyright unless you
>copy it.)
As allready said, you are arguing, it appears, by assuming your own countries law applies everywhere. In Sweden for example, the equivalency to "fair use", although it is actually part of the actual copyright laws, gives you permision to make copies for "private use". This private use DO include copies to family and close friends. So, yes, here it is allowed to copy a music CD you own and give the copy to a friend of yours. This copying for private use does not apply to computer software though.
>...but the copyright is still mine, and I can
>dictate terms of use for my work as long as it's
>in effect.
and
>Under copyright, law, you have ABSOLUTELY NO
>RIGHTS to a work EXCEPT those granted by the
>copyright holder.
This is not correct. Copyright laws do NOT dictate use. Copyright laws hanld only a few specific things, such as copying, distribution (of additional works usually), public performance and such. Actual USE is not at all covered.
It is very important also to realise the difference between the actual "item", like the boom, or software program, and the "content" of it. The copyright governs the content. As such, I can own a book, and it is mine, yet I might not hodl the copyright to the content. There is NOTHING in the copyright laws that prevents me from using the book or program I might own. And there is no need for any special permision from the copyright owner to use it. You do need permision from the copyright owner if you want to make copies to give away for example or if you want to read a book for the public somewhere and so on.
So no, it is not correct to say "you have absolutely no right", the correct way would be to say that one has ALL the rights, except a few, specified in copyright laws, that are exclusive to the copyright owner. And note, there are several exceptions to the exclusiveness as well.
>Because GPL code is copyrighted, the owners of
>the copyrights have the final say in how the
>code can be used.
No, copyright does not give you the right to tell how something is USED. It gives you an exclusive right (with some exceptions) to make copies, derivative work, public performnace and such. That is is. It does not cover general use of a work, even though many software, music and film providers wants to make you believe otherwise.
>Why? If GPL fails your code will automatically
>revert to normal copyright wich AFAIK requires
>your permission to use it in any circumstance.
I always thought of thr GPL as a such a permision. You normally can't distribute works or derivate works of someone without a permision. The GPL gives you (limitied, in that you must include the source) permision to do so. So, how can a permision "fail" and be said to not be valid? It is only when one try to make GPL into some sort of contract or license that it gets bad since there really is no agreement in the sense contract law requires. But if one look at it as a blanket permision given to anyone that wants so, to create derivative work and distribute it with the source, I see no problem and no way to not "uphold" it in a court or whatever.
>A finding like that would probably be beyond the
>ability of any judge at this point. It would
>destroy lots of very good and useful law that
>suggests that acceptance of a contract is
>implied by acting in accordance with the
>contract.
Out of curiosity, does such a law actually exists? And if so, which country do you talk about? When I studied contract law (admitadly in a small course that touched many areas of laws but none really thoroughly) there were specific "rules" for how to enter a contract but no mention of what you just said.
>The trick is prooving who caused the effect.
>It's not as simple as prooving who was behind
>the wheel of a car.
It gets even more complicated if several people live in the house (or if you can claim friends or family have been in your house). To actually prove who was the one responsible in such cases is even more difficulty.
Ohh, and we are not discussing the responsability versus the ISP here, that is in most cases whoever signed the contract, but criminal/civil responsability which is not an issue versus your ISP but versus the state/whoever.
>Once again, they made 2 distinct games and a
>bunch of derivative clones based on those two
>platforms.
OK, so lets accept that statement of yours. That implies that they are quite good at making derivative clones since they have succeeded many times at it (and not really failed). Since Warcraft online could thus also be seen as a derivative clone, chances are they might be very successfull in my opinion!!
>If you sell your used hardware to someone, then
>from the corporate viewpoint, YOU are depriving
>them of their right to sell NEW hardware to that
>person
Ehh, yes, that is what RIAA and other "content providers" call theft isn't it (and all others that think copyrigth infringement equals theft). That is, you deprive them of a possible income, hence they lose something and it is theft. SO I guess soon they will argue second hand shops are actuall big illegal thievery shops. Sigh.
There really aren't "European laws". There are directives and such for the countries to follow. The individial countries has to adopt them into their own laws (which might be done differently in different countries). It is still the individual laws of each country that applies untl they are changed. One can take the COUNTRY to the court for not implementing the directives and such, but you can't charge individuals and such for not following a directive that has not been yet incorporated into a law.