>I can't think of a better turn of events to bring >the issue to the common man than to have >copyright laws prohibit buying and selling cars
Huh? What does copyright laws have to do with that? Copyright laws doesn't prevent you from selling, say, a book you bought or anything else just becayse there is something that has a copyright "in" it. Copyright laws deals with making copies , doing public performace and such.
What is the issue is contract laws and any special contract you may have done at the same time you purchased something but again, that has nothing to do with copyright laws.
You can't contract away guilt according to law. SO no, that would not matter. Beside, even assuming EULA are generally OK, statements such as "you are guilty for all you do and we are not" are far to generalized to be possible to upheld anyway.
>Copyright infringement is stealing alright. But >it's not the song/movie/ebook that's being stolen >-- what is being stolen is the right to copy that >work and benefit from such copies.
IF the right to copy was stolen, the orignial "owner" wold no longer have it. Are you saying that in copyright infringemet cases, the original copyright holder can no longer make copies? That is obviously not true, hence it can not have been stolen from him. He can still copy his work, he still owns the copyright to it and so on. Stealing the copyright would be a far more compicated matter and would in my opinion be closer the fraud or something making people believe someone else is the holder of the copyright.
>...that infringement or misappropriation really >doesn't deprive the victim of their product >because it is merely being copied, so >infringement or misappropriation is not truly >theft.
and
> In very real terms, even though he retains his >property, the digital victim is in a much worse >position than the victim of a more traditional >theft.
Arguing that it is NOT theft does not nessecarilly imply that is is a "less" crime or not as bad. It simply means that it is bad equaling it with theft since it often is not at all the same thing, PLUS, you don't use theft laws on copyright infringment.
>To him, the theft is clear and the harm couldn t >be more real.
I fail to see the jump they do here. So he feels he is worse of, so it must be the same as theft? If anything, it is a good example why it should NOT be the same as theft or called theft since it is very different in nature and can have very different results, both worse and better than theft. There are other cases where you can have copyright infringment but where calling it theft is just stupid. For example, someone singing a song on the street, that is copyright infringement in many cases (even if you do it for free), since public performance is one of the rights granted to the copyright holder as an exclusive right. Arguing that it is theft singing on the streets is to me just rediculous. Oh well.
>Explain what copyright infringment is and why >it's bad without using any concept of stealing or >theft. I can't do it. I don't think you can, >either.You cannot use the concept of paying >people for their hard work if you enjoy the >fruits of their labor, since not doing that is >stealing.
Copyright ionfringement is creating a new copy of something which you are not allowed to do. That is, you gained something you should ne have been allowed to gain.
Theft has an additional part, which is that not only did you gain something, the one you stole from lost his copy of it (since there was not any copying involved creating a second copy).
In addition, copyright infringment works on non physical objects while theft works on physical ones (well, at least normally).
Finally, copyright infringement is limited in time, after a certain time (which is definately to long in my opinion right now), the copying IS suddenly allowed. If any copying would be stealing, how come it suddenly stop being theft just because the copyright expired, it is still the exact same copying.
It is also worth noticing that copyright infringment is NOT directly connected to money or value since even if there is no selling for money or other value transaction, it is STILL copyright infringement to to copy something you don't have the right to copy (even if someone holding the copyright for example is giving away copies for free which makes it very hard to claim the equality of theft in such a case, while it is still copyright infringement).
Copyright infringement typically involve COPYING something, that is, creating a new copy of something in existance (as oposed to theft that takes away a single (or more) objects (physical) from someone without creating a new copy of it. This is especially important to notice the difference when one talk about the legality of it, since you can't at all use theft laws on copyright infringement.
I still see problems with that type of billing though, since suddenly the customer has to pay for all spam (well, mails are small ammounts), pop ups and even direct "attacks", on your computer. Basically every bit travelling to your computer, wether you wanted it or not, or even know it is comming, gets taxed. Not a fun situation when you get the astronomical bill and get the answer "perhaps someone tried a DOS attack on you (for whatever reason), that could also be why you could not get out on the net, tough luck".
>In serveral (maybe many?) states of the union, a >child under 18 can not legally enter into a >binding contract.
The same is, almost, true here in Sweden too BUT with the addition of "withouth the acceptance of their parents". So if the parents accept the contract, then yes, someone under the age of 18 can indeed enter into contracts. That is why a child can indeed go to a shop and buy things. However, the shop keeper should be carefull on expensive deals with children if there is no reason for the to believe the parent would agree to it. The parent can for example, without any other reason than that they don't agree to the purchase cancel it and get the money back claiming it was sold to someone under 18 years old without their concent.
ALl this does NOT however, transfer responsability for the contract over to the parent.
>If you have children, you are responsible for >any damages that they cause until they reach the >age where they are considered an adult under the >law.
That depend a lot with country. In Sweden, for example, you can never be hold responsible for any other persons actions, that includes your children. You do have a certain supervision requirement over your children though, so you can be deemed to have been neglectable in it, but that is about it. It is of course highly age dependant. It can be said to be neglectable in it if you let your 1 year old child run wild on the streets in a town causing accidents. However, leting your 14 year old child out without actual eye contact supervision is hardly a problem.
On the other hand, you CAN sue anyone, even a 3 year old here in Sweden. So indeed, the equivalency of RIAA can indeed sue a 10 year uploading music to others. The ammount is typically adjusted downwards depending on age (to appraoch zero when the person is just a few years old). Since children typically don't have money (you can NOT take the parents money), the one suing usually has to wait until later when the person actually has money, but nothing prevents them from waiting until they turn old and get a job and then ask for the money.
>So, if my girlfriend commits an illegal act my >ISP will cut _me_ off - and that was my whole >point. I am indeed responsible for what she does.
Yes, versus the ISP, not RIAA as allready pointed out. If the ISP has a contract with you stating they may terminate your contract with them if any illegal action is done, then they can do that regardless of WHO did it, although they don't have to of course. Now, that does not mean you can go to jail for what someone else did with your connection. In the same way you can't sign a contract with anyone saying that "I am responsible for all use with this knife", meaning I go to jail for robbery if someone else used it to rob a shop. That won't work out.
So the only thing RIAA in this case can do if they can't prove WHO actually put out the songs, is to contact your ISP and ask them to terminate the contract with their customer (assuming the ISP actually has such a rule, all might not). To get someone into court, they need to actually manage to prove who it was.
Perhaps the laws in US are very different though so that you can contract away legal liability, but then, you would see people rob banks and kill people and getting away with it since they contracted away their legal responsability to someone else. I doubt that is the case.
>No, they couldn't. They wouldn't have a way to >legitimately acquire the product without >agreeing to those terms and conditions.
They are not aquiering it, they don't NEED to aquire it, they are making a copy of someone else. You don't need to aquire anything, you just create a copy. That IS the difference.
Besides, remember that NOTHING in the EULA would apply to them (the ones copying it), so what else (if there is no copyright law) makes it a need to agree to the EULA when creating your copy? The only thing that "legitimately" gives such rights is copyright laws and the example was about a situation with no such laws.
It has a value that people give it. If people don't think it has a value, there is no value in it. There isn't any inherant value in information in itself. Granted, copyright laws give information higher value than it would without it.
>If you create something of value, you should be >able to make money off of it.
Why? You may equal value with ability to make money, but that of course means that if no one is willing to pay you anything, it is of no value. So basically it only has value if someone is willing to give you money for it. Since ideas and information can easilly be copied (and created) without any need to imput money, why should someone pay money to do it? In my opinion, you should not have to pay for something that doesn't cost anyone else additional money. Copying does not do that. Sure, someone might still have spent moeny before, but that is their chose to do or not.
>As a matter of fact, in order for a capitalist >economy to work, you must be able to make money >when you create value.
BUt you assume information has some inherant value. Physical things do have some inherant value (although it may be next to none of course). Information in itself does not since it can be copied and basically created at no cost. there might be some cost to create the information initially but on the other hand, this might not be needed either. Even so, just because you initially had to use money to come up with some information, does not mean the information take over the value of that money.
So I don't agree with the fact that information has value inherantly. It only has some value when someone want to pay for it. AT times someone might want to pay for it even if it would be possible to instead make ones own copy, sometimes one don't. But to prevent someone from creating some information by himself when it would not cost someone some additional money is in my opinion stupid.
>Copyright makes it possible to make money off of >information -- when that information has value.
Copyright, based on how one view it, is not fundamentally meant to allow people to make money on something. although it makes it possible. In my view, copyright has among other one function to prevent others from making money on what you came up with.
In addition, I am of the opinion that information should NOT be something you should be able to make money on. (and I assume that when we talk about information here, we talk about things covered by copyright, not really "information" in the normal sense since that is not covered by copyright to start with).
>Don't give me shit about "people will do it >anyway if they enjoy their work".
I won't. On the other hand, to imagine that no one would do anything if we removed copyright is equally wrong. That wouyld be like saying that no one would write any music at all without copyright, which is an equally wrong statement.
However, if something DO have value, people WOULD pay for it, or it would not have any value to start with. Value is what people are willing to pay for something. Copyright sets up artificial values on things that would not have value otherwise. One might think that is good or bad, personalyl I am mostly of the "bad" opinion.
> This may be true in a few cases, but most >people don't have that kind of free time -- they >have to make money in order to eat. If not for >copyright, there would be far fewer programmers >and artists,
Of course, but why create laws that create new type of work or more work of some specific type? Sure, it is noce when the goverment create work for the people, but it could be done in other better ways in my opinion. So no, claiming that there would be fewer programers if there is no copyright, although a proably correct statement, is not a reason to have copyright laws. If so, we might as well have a law that for example say that everyone talking a bath at the beach mu
There is a small box with s snipet of the law that talks about cookies and the excpetions you mentioned. It has allready been translated a few times in the thread if one scroll up.
>By copying copyrighted works you're breaking a >contract you made when you purchased the work.
No, you don't break a contract, you break the copyright law!!!! Huge difference. You don't make any contracts when you buy something (well usually not), since there is no need for it since the LAW allready contains the rules what you can and can not do. One can of course make additional contracts but that does not typically happens when you buy/sell music, books and so on.
>If I create an original work, and I offer to >sell it to you on the condition that you don't >make copies for other people, you have the >choice to buy it and not make copies, or to not >buy it at all.
Again, you never have such contracst that people are made to agree upon when you buy for example a book (and non agreed to "understandings" doesn't really matter much). There is no need for such a contract though, since the law ALWAYS apply and tells you that you can't make copies. The law do specify though that the the copyright holder can grant such rights to others (through for example a contract).
Now, even if you had a situation where the slae included a contract to not copy (for example), you would not acomplish anything since everyone else could STILL copy it since they aren't bound by that "upon sale" contract. As it is, they STILL can't do it, since the copyright law applies to everyone, both the buyer and everyone else and they can't make copies EVEN if they have made no agreement or contract to not copy it.
>Even without copyright, one could distribute >music etc with a EULA that would explicitly >forbid copying.
Ehh, sure, but everyone else on the planet who did NOT buy it, would not be bound by the EULA and hence could copy it without a problem. THAT is what copyright is all about, copying it to create a new identical product.
>Why on Earth do you think you have the inherent >right to use stuff I spent time and money >producing without paying me for it?
Why on Earth do you think you have the right to expect people to pay you money for something just because you spent time and money on it?
We aren't talking about a physical object here, we are talking about ideas, thoughs and non physical "creations" here. Things that can without any cost to anyone be mass produced (that is copied) without any need for physical material and so on, and on top of that, anyone can get it without removing it from someone else. That is, just because you use the idea, doesn't mean anyone else lose it. So why should anyone get money from such a thing to start with? Should thinking be taxed? If someone figure out a say to move the legs in such a way that anyone can run at 50 miles an hour, should it be illegal to run that way without paying him? (Well, the car industry probably would like that). What if I set up a sign telling that it is faster to follow another road than the one the signs mention, should people be forced to pay you if they get to know about it and travell the other way? Regardless of if the idea from your sign or a friend who saw your sign and so on? After all, you probably took time and effort and perhaps even money into figuring out it was shorter and faster, so why should you not be payed for it? Such things are just silly in my opinion.
So no, there is no "right" for anyone to get payed just because they spend time or money on something even if others can take advantage of it as long as there is no "loss" (other than the no ability to gain money).
> If I weren't >here, you wouldn't have it, so why shouldn't I >get something in return?
If you hadn't told others, no one would have it and you would have no problems, if you don't want others to take "advatage" of your time and thinking and whatever non physical ideas and creations you make, then don't tell anyone about it.
>Bottom line. Music is *for sale* and if you want >it, you must pay for it.
No, there are many ways to get or listen to music without paying (and yes, I am talking about music that still has a copyright on them). I can for example go to a friends home and listen to his music. I can turn on the radio and listen to the music. I can record music of the radio. I can (at least in Sweden), get a copy of music from a friend (since such music is allowed according to our copyright law, at least for now) and so on.
There are many other ways as well where I don't have to pay for music I want that are all according to the law and does not infringe upon copyright. Of course, big content providers typically want you to believe otherwise and some press tend to jump onto that and write such things too, but that does not make it that way, fortunately.
Actually, in many countries you are not responsible for civil actions either. Sweden is such an example. You have a certain supervision responsability which goes down with age of your children. You can be said to be neglectable if you let a 2 year old lose in the streets and causes accidents and such, but leting your 15 year child "lose" on the street is certainly not the same thing. The basic rule of the law though is that you can never be responsible for any other persons actions (there is no exception for your children) and that includes civil matters. You have to go after the child itself. This IS possible for civil cases (for criminal it is basically harder until they are 15 years old). You can for example sue a 2 year old. The thing is that for example money compensation will typically be scaled with the age. So from a 2 year, it will be minimal if any while for a 14 year old it can be larger.
>I certainly don't have a warranty on any of the >free software I use... or most of my paid >softwre.
Were do you live? In many countries you automatically has warranty as a consumer for a specific minimum time which can't be lowered (only increased) through additional agreements, meaning even the now "12 month" length might in fact be longer if the law stipulate so.
Coffee is supposed to be hot. I personally boil water to make coffee. The fact that many coffee machines and most definately many places where you buy coffee uses a too low temperature is no excuse to claim "it was too hot". The thing is, you KNOW coffee is supposed to be hot. If it is slightly hotter or slightly colder is really irrelevant (except for the coffee being worse if it is not hot enough). If it was not so hot one could burn onself (and that really start happening at a lot lower temperature than your 140) I would complain, for it being cold.
>'ll have to call bullshit on this one. (Unless >you can point to some convincing source other >than "some guy...".) You can make copies, yes. >For your friend, no.
No idea about Canada (that he was talking about). Here in Sweden it is most definately OK (so far). You are allowed to make copies for family and close friends (close is actually quite broadly). They are looking at changing the law in the near future which might restrict this copying some but it is to early to say what it will end up like in the end.
Actually, it is most likely allowed to copy even of the net (since the way the law is written and interpreted so far) lump that in with the "copying for "personal" use). It hasn't been tried in court, that particular aspect but most agree that currently it is a hole in the law. Even the Swedish anti-pirate organisation admits to it in their home page. That hole will definately be closed with the new law though.
Assuming the copyright laws in Netherlands works the same way as many other countries in for example Europe, the database in itself could be protected by copyright, however, the specific data in it would not.
But can you actually demand in a contract the right to enter someones house to sell something to someone? I diubt you would be allowed to have such a demand here in Sweden for example. So it would in effect not be valid anyway.
My concern/question was in the validity of being allowed to put in such a demand for audits into contracts. You can't (as far as I am aware and here where I live) demand for example to be allowed to strip search someone to allow some sort of contract or entrance somewhere. Similary, you can't has as a condition to selling something that you want to be able to go home and look into someones house and so on. So is it really OK to demand having it in some agreement for buying computer software? Obviously this may vary with country.
As an example, (non software realted) a popular dancing place in my town had an incident (or several) with guests having a gun and actually shoting it inside. So they installed metal detectors at the entrance for people to pass. However (and this is mostly from discussions with people working at the place as security guards or whatever it is called in english) if the metal detecter beeps, they can ask people to for example empty their pockets and so on, but unless the guest want to, they can't search him/her and they can't deny entrance either based on the fact that the metal detector beeped. SO unless you otherwise behave correct (not drunk, threatening and so on), there is not much you can do since only police (AND with suspicion of greater illegal activities) would be allowed to search someone for example and you can't demand it as a requirement for entering a place or for example to make a contract.
As I said, this may vary with couontry and its laws.
I always found it strange. Basically an audit would be the equivalence of searching ones house/person/car/other property. The only ones usually allowed to do so is the police and they need a warrent and/or at least a suspicion of some sort of crime (this may depend on country of course). This is something ONLY the police are allowed to do, that is, no one else can demand to do it for any reason, so that means you can't put into a contract that someone should be allowed to search you, your house, whatever as a condition in the contract. So what makes people and software companies thing it is OK to do it for computers? And is this something that vary a lot between different countries? I happen to live in Sweden by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
>I can't think of a better turn of events to bring
>the issue to the common man than to have
>copyright laws prohibit buying and selling cars
Huh? What does copyright laws have to do with that? Copyright laws doesn't prevent you from selling, say, a book you bought or anything else just becayse there is something that has a copyright "in" it. Copyright laws deals with making copies , doing public performace and such.
What is the issue is contract laws and any special contract you may have done at the same time you purchased something but again, that has nothing to do with copyright laws.
You can't contract away guilt according to law. SO no, that would not matter. Beside, even assuming EULA are generally OK, statements such as "you are guilty for all you do and we are not" are far to generalized to be possible to upheld anyway.
>Copyright infringement is stealing alright. But
>it's not the song/movie/ebook that's being stolen
>-- what is being stolen is the right to copy that
>work and benefit from such copies.
IF the right to copy was stolen, the orignial "owner" wold no longer have it. Are you saying that in copyright infringemet cases, the original copyright holder can no longer make copies? That is obviously not true, hence it can not have been stolen from him. He can still copy his work, he still owns the copyright to it and so on. Stealing the copyright would be a far more compicated matter and would in my opinion be closer the fraud or something making people believe someone else is the holder of the copyright.
>...that infringement or misappropriation really
>doesn't deprive the victim of their product
>because it is merely being copied, so
>infringement or misappropriation is not truly
>theft.
and
> In very real terms, even though he retains his
>property, the digital victim is in a much worse
>position than the victim of a more traditional
>theft.
Arguing that it is NOT theft does not nessecarilly imply that is is a "less" crime or not as bad. It simply means that it is bad equaling it with theft since it often is not at all the same thing, PLUS, you don't use theft laws on copyright infringment.
>To him, the theft is clear and the harm couldn t
>be more real.
I fail to see the jump they do here. So he feels he is worse of, so it must be the same as theft? If anything, it is a good example why it should NOT be the same as theft or called theft since it is very different in nature and can have very different results, both worse and better than theft. There are other cases where you can have copyright infringment but where calling it theft is just stupid. For example, someone singing a song on the street, that is copyright infringement in many cases (even if you do it for free), since public performance is one of the rights granted to the copyright holder as an exclusive right. Arguing that it is theft singing on the streets is to me just rediculous. Oh well.
>Explain what copyright infringment is and why
>it's bad without using any concept of stealing or
>theft. I can't do it. I don't think you can,
>either.You cannot use the concept of paying
>people for their hard work if you enjoy the
>fruits of their labor, since not doing that is
>stealing.
Copyright ionfringement is creating a new copy of something which you are not allowed to do. That is, you gained something you should ne have been allowed to gain.
Theft has an additional part, which is that not only did you gain something, the one you stole from lost his copy of it (since there was not any copying involved creating a second copy).
In addition, copyright infringment works on non physical objects while theft works on physical ones (well, at least normally).
Finally, copyright infringement is limited in time, after a certain time (which is definately to long in my opinion right now), the copying IS suddenly allowed. If any copying would be stealing, how come it suddenly stop being theft just because the copyright expired, it is still the exact same copying.
It is also worth noticing that copyright infringment is NOT directly connected to money or value since even if there is no selling for money or other value transaction, it is STILL copyright infringement to to copy something you don't have the right to copy (even if someone holding the copyright for example is giving away copies for free which makes it very hard to claim the equality of theft in such a case, while it is still copyright infringement).
Copyright infringement typically involve COPYING something, that is, creating a new copy of something in existance (as oposed to theft that takes away a single (or more) objects (physical) from someone without creating a new copy of it. This is especially important to notice the difference when one talk about the legality of it, since you can't at all use theft laws on copyright infringement.
I still see problems with that type of billing though, since suddenly the customer has to pay for all spam (well, mails are small ammounts), pop ups and even direct "attacks", on your computer. Basically every bit travelling to your computer, wether you wanted it or not, or even know it is comming, gets taxed. Not a fun situation when you get the astronomical bill and get the answer "perhaps someone tried a DOS attack on you (for whatever reason), that could also be why you could not get out on the net, tough luck".
>In serveral (maybe many?) states of the union, a
>child under 18 can not legally enter into a
>binding contract.
The same is, almost, true here in Sweden too BUT with the addition of "withouth the acceptance of their parents". So if the parents accept the contract, then yes, someone under the age of 18 can indeed enter into contracts. That is why a child can indeed go to a shop and buy things. However, the shop keeper should be carefull on expensive deals with children if there is no reason for the to believe the parent would agree to it. The parent can for example, without any other reason than that they don't agree to the purchase cancel it and get the money back claiming it was sold to someone under 18 years old without their concent.
ALl this does NOT however, transfer responsability for the contract over to the parent.
>If you have children, you are responsible for
>any damages that they cause until they reach the
>age where they are considered an adult under the
>law.
That depend a lot with country. In Sweden, for example, you can never be hold responsible for any other persons actions, that includes your children. You do have a certain supervision requirement over your children though, so you can be deemed to have been neglectable in it, but that is about it. It is of course highly age dependant. It can be said to be neglectable in it if you let your 1 year old child run wild on the streets in a town causing accidents. However, leting your 14 year old child out without actual eye contact supervision is hardly a problem.
On the other hand, you CAN sue anyone, even a 3 year old here in Sweden. So indeed, the equivalency of RIAA can indeed sue a 10 year uploading music to others. The ammount is typically adjusted downwards depending on age (to appraoch zero when the person is just a few years old). Since children typically don't have money (you can NOT take the parents money), the one suing usually has to wait until later when the person actually has money, but nothing prevents them from waiting until they turn old and get a job and then ask for the money.
>So, if my girlfriend commits an illegal act my
>ISP will cut _me_ off - and that was my whole
>point. I am indeed responsible for what she does.
Yes, versus the ISP, not RIAA as allready pointed out. If the ISP has a contract with you stating they may terminate your contract with them if any illegal action is done, then they can do that regardless of WHO did it, although they don't have to of course. Now, that does not mean you can go to jail for what someone else did with your connection. In the same way you can't sign a contract with anyone saying that "I am responsible for all use with this knife", meaning I go to jail for robbery if someone else used it to rob a shop. That won't work out.
So the only thing RIAA in this case can do if they can't prove WHO actually put out the songs, is to contact your ISP and ask them to terminate the contract with their customer (assuming the ISP actually has such a rule, all might not). To get someone into court, they need to actually manage to prove who it was.
Perhaps the laws in US are very different though so that you can contract away legal liability, but then, you would see people rob banks and kill people and getting away with it since they contracted away their legal responsability to someone else. I doubt that is the case.
>No, they couldn't. They wouldn't have a way to
>legitimately acquire the product without
>agreeing to those terms and conditions.
They are not aquiering it, they don't NEED to aquire it, they are making a copy of someone else. You don't need to aquire anything, you just create a copy. That IS the difference.
Besides, remember that NOTHING in the EULA would apply to them (the ones copying it), so what else (if there is no copyright law) makes it a need to agree to the EULA when creating your copy? The only thing that "legitimately" gives such rights is copyright laws and the example was about a situation with no such laws.
>Information has value.
It has a value that people give it. If people don't think it has a value, there is no value in it. There isn't any inherant value in information in itself. Granted, copyright laws give information higher value than it would without it.
>If you create something of value, you should be
>able to make money off of it.
Why? You may equal value with ability to make money, but that of course means that if no one is willing to pay you anything, it is of no value. So basically it only has value if someone is willing to give you money for it. Since ideas and information can easilly be copied (and created) without any need to imput money, why should someone pay money to do it? In my opinion, you should not have to pay for something that doesn't cost anyone else additional money. Copying does not do that. Sure, someone might still have spent moeny before, but that is their chose to do or not.
>As a matter of fact, in order for a capitalist
>economy to work, you must be able to make money
>when you create value.
BUt you assume information has some inherant value. Physical things do have some inherant value (although it may be next to none of course). Information in itself does not since it can be copied and basically created at no cost. there might be some cost to create the information initially but on the other hand, this might not be needed either. Even so, just because you initially had to use money to come up with some information, does not mean the information take over the value of that money.
So I don't agree with the fact that information has value inherantly. It only has some value when someone want to pay for it. AT times someone might want to pay for it even if it would be possible to instead make ones own copy, sometimes one don't. But to prevent someone from creating some information by himself when it would not cost someone some additional money is in my opinion stupid.
>Copyright makes it possible to make money off of
>information -- when that information has value.
Copyright, based on how one view it, is not fundamentally meant to allow people to make money on something. although it makes it possible. In my view, copyright has among other one function to prevent others from making money on what you came up with.
In addition, I am of the opinion that information should NOT be something you should be able to make money on. (and I assume that when we talk about information here, we talk about things covered by copyright, not really "information" in the normal sense since that is not covered by copyright to start with).
>Don't give me shit about "people will do it
>anyway if they enjoy their work".
I won't. On the other hand, to imagine that no one would do anything if we removed copyright is equally wrong. That wouyld be like saying that no one would write any music at all without copyright, which is an equally wrong statement.
However, if something DO have value, people WOULD pay for it, or it would not have any value to start with. Value is what people are willing to pay for something. Copyright sets up artificial values on things that would not have value otherwise. One might think that is good or bad, personalyl I am mostly of the "bad" opinion.
> This may be true in a few cases, but most
>people don't have that kind of free time -- they
>have to make money in order to eat. If not for
>copyright, there would be far fewer programmers
>and artists,
Of course, but why create laws that create new type of work or more work of some specific type? Sure, it is noce when the goverment create work for the people, but it could be done in other better ways in my opinion. So no, claiming that there would be fewer programers if there is no copyright, although a proably correct statement, is not a reason to have copyright laws. If so, we might as well have a law that for example say that everyone talking a bath at the beach mu
There is a small box with s snipet of the law that talks about cookies and the excpetions you mentioned. It has allready been translated a few times in the thread if one scroll up.
>By copying copyrighted works you're breaking a
>contract you made when you purchased the work.
No, you don't break a contract, you break the copyright law!!!! Huge difference. You don't make any contracts when you buy something (well usually not), since there is no need for it since the LAW allready contains the rules what you can and can not do. One can of course make additional contracts but that does not typically happens when you buy/sell music, books and so on.
>If I create an original work, and I offer to
>sell it to you on the condition that you don't
>make copies for other people, you have the
>choice to buy it and not make copies, or to not
>buy it at all.
Again, you never have such contracst that people are made to agree upon when you buy for example a book (and non agreed to "understandings" doesn't really matter much). There is no need for such a contract though, since the law ALWAYS apply and tells you that you can't make copies. The law do specify though that the the copyright holder can grant such rights to others (through for example a contract).
Now, even if you had a situation where the slae included a contract to not copy (for example), you would not acomplish anything since everyone else could STILL copy it since they aren't bound by that "upon sale" contract. As it is, they STILL can't do it, since the copyright law applies to everyone, both the buyer and everyone else and they can't make copies EVEN if they have made no agreement or contract to not copy it.
>Even without copyright, one could distribute
>music etc with a EULA that would explicitly
>forbid copying.
Ehh, sure, but everyone else on the planet who did NOT buy it, would not be bound by the EULA and hence could copy it without a problem. THAT is what copyright is all about, copying it to create a new identical product.
>Why on Earth do you think you have the inherent
>right to use stuff I spent time and money
>producing without paying me for it?
Why on Earth do you think you have the right to expect people to pay you money for something just because you spent time and money on it?
We aren't talking about a physical object here, we are talking about ideas, thoughs and non physical "creations" here. Things that can without any cost to anyone be mass produced (that is copied) without any need for physical material and so on, and on top of that, anyone can get it without removing it from someone else. That is, just because you use the idea, doesn't mean anyone else lose it. So why should anyone get money from such a thing to start with? Should thinking be taxed? If someone figure out a say to move the legs in such a way that anyone can run at 50 miles an hour, should it be illegal to run that way without paying him? (Well, the car industry probably would like that). What if I set up a sign telling that it is faster to follow another road than the one the signs mention, should people be forced to pay you if they get to know about it and travell the other way? Regardless of if the idea from your sign or a friend who saw your sign and so on? After all, you probably took time and effort and perhaps even money into figuring out it was shorter and faster, so why should you not be payed for it? Such things are just silly in my opinion.
So no, there is no "right" for anyone to get payed just because they spend time or money on something even if others can take advantage of it as long as there is no "loss" (other than the no ability to gain money).
> If I weren't
>here, you wouldn't have it, so why shouldn't I
>get something in return?
If you hadn't told others, no one would have it and you would have no problems, if you don't want others to take "advatage" of your time and thinking and whatever non physical ideas and creations you make, then don't tell anyone about it.
>Bottom line. Music is *for sale* and if you want
>it, you must pay for it.
No, there are many ways to get or listen to music without paying (and yes, I am talking about music that still has a copyright on them). I can for example go to a friends home and listen to his music. I can turn on the radio and listen to the music. I can record music of the radio. I can (at least in Sweden), get a copy of music from a friend (since such music is allowed according to our copyright law, at least for now) and so on.
There are many other ways as well where I don't have to pay for music I want that are all according to the law and does not infringe upon copyright. Of course, big content providers typically want you to believe otherwise and some press tend to jump onto that and write such things too, but that does not make it that way, fortunately.
Actually, in many countries you are not responsible for civil actions either. Sweden is such an example. You have a certain supervision responsability which goes down with age of your children. You can be said to be neglectable if you let a 2 year old lose in the streets and causes accidents and such, but leting your 15 year child "lose" on the street is certainly not the same thing. The basic rule of the law though is that you can never be responsible for any other persons actions (there is no exception for your children) and that includes civil matters. You have to go after the child itself. This IS possible for civil cases (for criminal it is basically harder until they are 15 years old). You can for example sue a 2 year old. The thing is that for example money compensation will typically be scaled with the age. So from a 2 year, it will be minimal if any while for a 14 year old it can be larger.
>I certainly don't have a warranty on any of the
>free software I use... or most of my paid
>softwre.
Were do you live? In many countries you automatically has warranty as a consumer for a specific minimum time which can't be lowered (only increased) through additional agreements, meaning even the now "12 month" length might in fact be longer if the law stipulate so.
Coffee is supposed to be hot. I personally boil water to make coffee. The fact that many coffee machines and most definately many places where you buy coffee uses a too low temperature is no excuse to claim "it was too hot". The thing is, you KNOW coffee is supposed to be hot. If it is slightly hotter or slightly colder is really irrelevant (except for the coffee being worse if it is not hot enough). If it was not so hot one could burn onself (and that really start happening at a lot lower temperature than your 140) I would complain, for it being cold.
>'ll have to call bullshit on this one. (Unless
>you can point to some convincing source other
>than "some guy...".) You can make copies, yes.
>For your friend, no.
No idea about Canada (that he was talking about). Here in Sweden it is most definately OK (so far). You are allowed to make copies for family and close friends (close is actually quite broadly). They are looking at changing the law in the near future which might restrict this copying some but it is to early to say what it will end up like in the end.
Actually, it is most likely allowed to copy even of the net (since the way the law is written and interpreted so far) lump that in with the "copying for "personal" use). It hasn't been tried in court, that particular aspect but most agree that currently it is a hole in the law. Even the Swedish anti-pirate organisation admits to it in their home page. That hole will definately be closed with the new law though.
Assuming the copyright laws in Netherlands works the same way as many other countries in for example Europe, the database in itself could be protected by copyright, however, the specific data in it would not.
But can you actually demand in a contract the right to enter someones house to sell something to someone? I diubt you would be allowed to have such a demand here in Sweden for example. So it would in effect not be valid anyway.
My concern/question was in the validity of being allowed to put in such a demand for audits into contracts. You can't (as far as I am aware and here where I live) demand for example to be allowed to strip search someone to allow some sort of contract or entrance somewhere. Similary, you can't has as a condition to selling something that you want to be able to go home and look into someones house and so on. So is it really OK to demand having it in some agreement for buying computer software? Obviously this may vary with country.
As an example, (non software realted) a popular dancing place in my town had an incident (or several) with guests having a gun and actually shoting it inside. So they installed metal detectors at the entrance for people to pass. However (and this is mostly from discussions with people working at the place as security guards or whatever it is called in english) if the metal detecter beeps, they can ask people to for example empty their pockets and so on, but unless the guest want to, they can't search him/her and they can't deny entrance either based on the fact that the metal detector beeped. SO unless you otherwise behave correct (not drunk, threatening and so on), there is not much you can do since only police (AND with suspicion of greater illegal activities) would be allowed to search someone for example and you can't demand it as a requirement for entering a place or for example to make a contract.
As I said, this may vary with couontry and its laws.
I always found it strange. Basically an audit would be the equivalence of searching ones house/person/car/other property. The only ones usually allowed to do so is the police and they need a warrent and/or at least a suspicion of some sort of crime (this may depend on country of course). This is something ONLY the police are allowed to do, that is, no one else can demand to do it for any reason, so that means you can't put into a contract that someone should be allowed to search you, your house, whatever as a condition in the contract. So what makes people and software companies thing it is OK to do it for computers? And is this something that vary a lot between different countries? I happen to live in Sweden by the way.