>See Wikipedia about EULAs under Product Liability
There is nothing there regarding consumers and the law in the USA which was what the person asked about (and also the article is about a consumer). The case given is for a company buying software which is not a consumer. So does there exist any consumer laws regulating things like liability and if they can be "contracted away" or not?
From the end of the article: >...the last chance for Open XML to be approved."
Shouldn't this be "...the last chance for Open XML to be approved through the fast track method.". It can then still take the normal, but quite longer and time consuming way .
>When a radio station plays a song, they play it in a private studio, >and beam the results of playing it out to all their listeners.
They beam the actual work, the song. If you run a program (a work) on your computer and only send out the result of the program (not the work) there is no public performance of the work, which is what I commented/asked about.
>Copyright law allows the copyright holder control >over public performance of their work.
But how is this public performance of the work? I am no expert or even that much knowledgable about "web services" but to my understanding the whole issue comes from the fact that the program (the work) is NOT run publicly but on your own servers, only the result, output, of the program is ever public, or is some compiled version of it sent to the users of the service. After all, if the work WAS performed publicly, it would not be unkown or secret and everyone would have access to start with it. So feel free to tell were I am wrong, I would be happy to know.
>I don't, and don't think it necessary. You let your >country make its laws, let my country make its own.
That is fine. I doubt your country would like it though, to lose much of the copyrights in the rest of the world. Personally I think it would be great.
>If you don't have a computer or a fax or a phone, >you can always use the mail. The international postal >system is pretty good.
See my reply above, it has nothing to do with how others get to know about your register. It was about hor copyright would work internationally when each country starts to require their own system for registring and honouring copyright. You would basically lose any protection in every other country were you do not find out what is needed by you, register and so on. The international system of honouring each other's copyright would not work so well, hence my question.
>If you want a US copyright, you deal with the US paperwork. >If you want a Canadian copyright, you deal with the Canadian >paperwork. If you want a UK copyright, you deal with the UK paperwork.
So the answer it, it does not work internationally at all. One is back to the old day, pre bern convention and such were copyright is a local issue and you have no protection in other places were you want protection. With communication, trade, travell and general internationalilzation, one basically end sup unprotected if you don't go arround and do the paperworks in every other country. It is more a choice of do it everywere or nowere.
Even if one DO adopt the system and one DO make the paper works, what is acceptable contact addresses? I assume you allow world wide addresses or do you require someone to actually set up some US (or country specific address in each country if we talk generally) to hande it? What type of contact service is needed? Does it have to be personal or can one set up a company that handle all such contacts internationally? I do agree on the fact that such a system breaking up compyright to be a completely regional thing will make the protection MUCH weaker, even in the country were you want protection since people can just go abroad to get arround it. Sure, one can put up an iron curtain between each country dissallowing any transfer of goods or even persons over the boarder to avoid it but I doubt that is a price that is worth paying.
>They don't have calendars or computers or databases in other countries?
Yes, but how would that help? I was commenting on the system of registering the copyright. Who should do that? Would it be part of some internationally body making it world wide (requiring all countries in the world to adopt this same system)? Or should each country has their own system requiring registration? Would each and every person or company in other countries in the world have to go register in every other country ion the world were they want protection? How would you know about the case for each country? Would you have to go to each other country and register were you want protection?
This would basically mean that to get good protection, you need to register in every country (paying the money in every country if any) to get good protection or you will have places with no protection for your work. In what way does it help to have a calendar or computer or even a database in other countries? My question was about how the copyright would work internatinally, not if it would be possible for other countries to implement the same thing.
>Also, despite what slashdotters like to think, EULAs almost >certainly meet the requirements of contracts: offer ("take >it or leave it"), acceptance (by signature or performance) >and consideration (in exchange for the right to use the software >at the price I'm selling it to you, you agree to these other terms).
I guess contract law can differ between countries, but at least here in Sweden, one of the requirements of the contract is that the acceptance should reach the one making the offer. There is no contract until that moment. Thus if one one can intercept the acceptance before it reaching the one making an offer one can recall it. For example, if you send in a mail were you accept a contract offer, one can tear it up before putting it on the mail box or even after putting it there, if one can get the mail back before it is deleivered one can also tear it up and so on. In no case is there a contract formed.
A problem in the case of many such EULA contract offers is that there is never any acceptance that reaches the one making the offer. Note that the software or program itself can't work on behalf of the one making an offer since a computer program is not a legal entity. This of course means one need to have some copmmunication back (over the net for example).
One can also discuss what types of performances or actions that can be acceptable as showing acceptance. In the case of software, it is typically in one way or another "if you use it" (this includes the Click on OK since the software is basically set up to not be usable unless you do so). So what other such perfromances are acceptable? One can note that at least Swedish contract law doesn't specify any specific ways how the acceptance or offer shall be made and one can not generally through the contract specify how a contract should be formed. You can't contract saying that an oral contract is not valid since the law specifically allow any way to form contracts. This was even in court not long ago for cable televisions were the cable company claimed that to end the contract one had to do it in writing and that it was not valid to do so orally (for example by phoning). It was ruled that this was not acceptable since the law honours any form of entering int contract. So what if one indicate in some way the none acceptance (other than clicking "do not agree" button) for example by sending a letter to the manufacturer, and then continue to use the program? Is really a contract formed (note that you really don't have to specifically decline a contract for it to not apply, such types of contracts were you enter into a contract by NOT telling you don't want to is not allowed).
One can think of many other "problems" with the way EULA contracts are offered and entered into (or not entered into). Of course, it can probably vary a lot between countries.
>Agreed, to get copyright you should have to register your >copyright. And you should havce to clearly state the year >your copyrighted work was registered so one can know when >it gets to the public domain.
How do you propose to make such a system work internationally?
>That's usually how it works in Europe. Suing some company >isn't like playing the lottery. If a company cause you damages, >they will usually be forced to pay for the damages, legal costs, >and possibly some small bonus on top of that, to compensate for >the "discomfort" (can't find a good word here, I'm sure you get >my point).
But the lottery is still there in that if you lose, you can end up having to pay all the costs including that of all the lawyers of the company and so on which might end up being quite a lot of money for you. So the lottery part is still there.
>the EULA explicitly states [at least for the US] >that you have the right to return the software >[specifically] for a full refund if you don't >agree with the EULA.
But if you don't agree to it, there is no agreement right? And if there is no agreement, what is said in it doesn't apply, right? So it is quite pointless to put into an agreement what applies if you do NOT agree to it.
>All it will cost the computer maker presumably is >the time it takes for someone to process the request, >and perhaps mailing costs (if internet purchase for >example).
But I read this other news that a lost sale is stealing and the software business is losing so much money each year due to lost sales, and now you come and tell me a lost sale doesn't cost them much at all?
>Buying a car is a purchase of a tangible item. >Buying a game like this is the purchase of a license.
A copy of a game is also a tangible item. One might need some sort of licens in ADDITION in some countries to use a copy of the game, in others one don't. In any case, one need a copy of the game in one way or another as a license in it self is quite pointless and useless.
>Valve is the publisher, they're publishing via Steam.
I thought these games were bought from shops (in Thailand) and also in other countries. Those were the type of games discussed above. In such a case, even iv Valve doesn't "exist" here, someone selling their products do and will thus take the blame/whatever and can in turn sort it out with Valve, ultimately not doing buissiness if it makes them end up in troubble. So even if one can escape going directly to court, one can end up losing the business.
>I don't see why not. It's not like you obtain any kind of ownership of the game when you purchase it.
Ehh, yes it is. That is the whole concept of the purchase thing, a change of ownership. When you buy something you become the owner. It is a very old concept and covered in law for centuries.
>You are only purchasing the (revokeable by them I'm sure) right to >use their software under the terms that Valve sets.
Why would you need to buy a right to use if there is nothing forbiding or preventing use to start with? Besides, even if you DID buy some "use right" you still need a copy of the game. How would you get your copy?
Do note that even copyright law doesn't give use (ordninasry use as in playing, listening, reading and so on) as a right to the copyright holder. Hence it is not something they can control or give away as rights to others since they don't have it to start with. The exact rights they have can vary somewhat between countries but use is typically not included.
>They can do anything they want with their own system.
Not really. They can if they keep it to themselves. However, if they sell goods or services to consumers, they no longer can do "anything they wany". Depending quite a lot on which country you look at the laws on what can and can't be done vary, but there aren't many that allows "anything they want".
>But the various analogies do help point out how absurd are some parts of copyright law,
I don't agree, the examples in themselves can show that. Further, since the analogies tend to not be analogies at all but differ quite a lot, they don't really show anything but the fact that people bases the view on something not at all related to copyright. I do agree about the fact that some parts of copyright has turned quite absurd and one could need a good revamp (is that the word?).
Perhaps, but why would one need to make an analogy to start with? What is so unclear about the first case?
Besides, I don't agree that your example or analogy is the same though. From a copyright perspective it differes, at least in some countries. Many countries for example have much more strict rules on what copies one can make of computer software than of books. In your example you make the copy from your own book, but the copy of the software is made from one on the net. Again, in many countries there is a difference from a copyright perspective on that. So you can have the book case not be infringment and the software one be. Not sure what this all had to do with my previous post though.
>To most people I've talked to "Copyright infringement" >IS a form of stealing, since they personalize the issue.
But people does NOT do the "everything that is copyright infringment and ONLY that that is copyright infringement is what should be call stealing (in addition to normal stealing). They tend to go out making all sorts of examples of how something is "stolen", taken away or whatever and thus claim it is OK to call it stealing. The problem is, the criteria for copyright infringment has nothing to do with anything being taken at all and thus one end up with all sort of things that would, to those people still be stealing, yet not being copyright infringment at all!!
You yourself do that and is a good example of why it is bad to call it stealing:
>(If I wrote a book and people infringed the copyright by making their >own copy and selling it, they're efectively stealing money from me.)
Apart from not being sure how it is "effectively stealing money from you", no matter how you explain it, about you not geting money you "should" get or something, there will be many similar or exact same cases were, even if you can show someone did "steal money" from you, it is not copyright infringment.
An example, based on the copyright law of my own country that allows copying for private use, and is as similar to your example as possible. Instead of selling the copy I create, I sell the original. From your, as the writer, point of view it is exactly the same, no matter how you define your "effectively stealing money from me" it is a case that is NOT copyright infringment and not illegal in any other way either.
One can make up all sort of other such examples for whatever case you like to justufy the "stealing" with and for other countries to suit their copyright laws as well (I picked that of my own country since I am very familiar with it).
So yes, it DOES matter and if there is according to you, no real difference, why not use the actual correct terminology to start with instead of having to make up all sort of examples and analogies to try to explain why using the wrong terminology is OK? It tends to be far less confusing and avoid making people get the wrong ideas of how copyright work (in making people think it is similar to stealing when it is not at all).
Slashdot Mirror
>That was what I was thinking as well - surely the EULA says not to reverse engineer the code.
Even if it did and it was enforcable, it doesn't mean the person who reverse engineered it had agreed to it to start with.
>See Wikipedia about EULAs under Product Liability
There is nothing there regarding consumers and the law in the USA which was what the person asked about (and also the article is about a consumer). The case given is for a company buying software which is not a consumer. So does there exist any consumer laws regulating things like liability and if they can be "contracted away" or not?
From the end of the article:
>...the last chance for Open XML to be approved."
Shouldn't this be "...the last chance for Open XML to be approved through the fast track method.". It can then still take the normal, but quite longer and time consuming way .
>When a radio station plays a song, they play it in a private studio,
>and beam the results of playing it out to all their listeners.
They beam the actual work, the song. If you run a program (a work) on your computer and only send out the result of the program (not the work) there is no public performance of the work, which is what I commented/asked about.
>Copyright law allows the copyright holder control
>over public performance of their work.
But how is this public performance of the work? I am no expert or even that much knowledgable about "web services" but to my understanding the whole issue comes from the fact that the program (the work) is NOT run publicly but on your own servers, only the result, output, of the program is ever public, or is some compiled version of it sent to the users of the service. After all, if the work WAS performed publicly, it would not be unkown or secret and everyone would have access to start with it. So feel free to tell were I am wrong, I would be happy to know.
>I don't, and don't think it necessary. You let your
>country make its laws, let my country make its own.
That is fine. I doubt your country would like it though, to lose much of the copyrights in the rest of the world. Personally I think it would be great.
>If you don't have a computer or a fax or a phone,
>you can always use the mail. The international postal
>system is pretty good.
See my reply above, it has nothing to do with how others get to know about your register. It was about hor copyright would work internationally when each country starts to require their own system for registring and honouring copyright. You would basically lose any protection in every other country were you do not find out what is needed by you, register and so on. The international system of honouring each other's copyright would not work so well, hence my question.
>If you want a US copyright, you deal with the US paperwork.
>If you want a Canadian copyright, you deal with the Canadian
>paperwork. If you want a UK copyright, you deal with the UK paperwork.
So the answer it, it does not work internationally at all. One is back to the old day, pre bern convention and such were copyright is a local issue and you have no protection in other places were you want protection. With communication, trade, travell and general internationalilzation, one basically end sup unprotected if you don't go arround and do the paperworks in every other country. It is more a choice of do it everywere or nowere.
Even if one DO adopt the system and one DO make the paper works, what is acceptable contact addresses? I assume you allow world wide addresses or do you require someone to actually set up some US (or country specific address in each country if we talk generally) to hande it? What type of contact service is needed? Does it have to be personal or can one set up a company that handle all such contacts internationally? I do agree on the fact that such a system breaking up compyright to be a completely regional thing will make the protection MUCH weaker, even in the country were you want protection since people can just go abroad to get arround it. Sure, one can put up an iron curtain between each country dissallowing any transfer of goods or even persons over the boarder to avoid it but I doubt that is a price that is worth paying.
>They don't have calendars or computers or databases in other countries?
Yes, but how would that help? I was commenting on the system of registering the copyright. Who should do that? Would it be part of some internationally body making it world wide (requiring all countries in the world to adopt this same system)? Or should each country has their own system requiring registration? Would each and every person or company in other countries in the world have to go register in every other country ion the world were they want protection? How would you know about the case for each country? Would you have to go to each other country and register were you want protection?
This would basically mean that to get good protection, you need to register in every country (paying the money in every country if any) to get good protection or you will have places with no protection for your work. In what way does it help to have a calendar or computer or even a database in other countries? My question was about how the copyright would work internatinally, not if it would be possible for other countries to implement the same thing.
>Also, despite what slashdotters like to think, EULAs almost
>certainly meet the requirements of contracts: offer ("take
>it or leave it"), acceptance (by signature or performance)
>and consideration (in exchange for the right to use the software
>at the price I'm selling it to you, you agree to these other terms).
I guess contract law can differ between countries, but at least here in Sweden, one of the requirements of the contract is that the acceptance should reach the one making the offer. There is no contract until that moment. Thus if one one can intercept the acceptance before it reaching the one making an offer one can recall it. For example, if you send in a mail were you accept a contract offer, one can tear it up before putting it on the mail box or even after putting it there, if one can get the mail back before it is deleivered one can also tear it up and so on. In no case is there a contract formed.
A problem in the case of many such EULA contract offers is that there is never any acceptance that reaches the one making the offer. Note that the software or program itself can't work on behalf of the one making an offer since a computer program is not a legal entity. This of course means one need to have some copmmunication back (over the net for example).
One can also discuss what types of performances or actions that can be acceptable as showing acceptance. In the case of software, it is typically in one way or another "if you use it" (this includes the Click on OK since the software is basically set up to not be usable unless you do so). So what other such perfromances are acceptable? One can note that at least Swedish contract law doesn't specify any specific ways how the acceptance or offer shall be made and one can not generally through the contract specify how a contract should be formed. You can't contract saying that an oral contract is not valid since the law specifically allow any way to form contracts. This was even in court not long ago for cable televisions were the cable company claimed that to end the contract one had to do it in writing and that it was not valid to do so orally (for example by phoning). It was ruled that this was not acceptable since the law honours any form of entering int contract. So what if one indicate in some way the none acceptance (other than clicking "do not agree" button) for example by sending a letter to the manufacturer, and then continue to use the program? Is really a contract formed (note that you really don't have to specifically decline a contract for it to not apply, such types of contracts were you enter into a contract by NOT telling you don't want to is not allowed).
One can think of many other "problems" with the way EULA contracts are offered and entered into (or not entered into). Of course, it can probably vary a lot between countries.
>Pff. When you installed windows you agreed not to hold them liable.
Pff. When many people installed windows they lived in countries with consumer laws not allowing the removal of many liabilities thorugh contracts.
>Agreed, to get copyright you should have to register your
>copyright. And you should havce to clearly state the year
>your copyrighted work was registered so one can know when
>it gets to the public domain.
How do you propose to make such a system work internationally?
I think you missunderstood what I was refering to.....
>That's usually how it works in Europe. Suing some company
>isn't like playing the lottery. If a company cause you damages,
>they will usually be forced to pay for the damages, legal costs,
>and possibly some small bonus on top of that, to compensate for
>the "discomfort" (can't find a good word here, I'm sure you get
>my point).
But the lottery is still there in that if you lose, you can end up having to pay all the costs including that of all the lawyers of the company and so on which might end up being quite a lot of money for you. So the lottery part is still there.
>the EULA states exactly in the first paragraph
But I thought this was in Italy and that it would be in Italian.
>Rejecting the contract at this stage means you have no need to read
>the rest of the EULA, and states explicitly that you are entitled to a refund,
But if you rejected it, why would it matter what it says?
>Perhaps he would have preferred a computer with no OS?
>That would have been really useful.
Perhaps he allready had some OS (including the possibility of a copy of XP) to install on it.
>For that to apply you would have to sign an agreement
>when you bought the computer.
Why?
>You agree to the EULA after you have bought the hardware,
>so it cannot affect your ownership of the hardware.
Exchange "hardware" for anything else you like. A toaster, a postcard, a book an operating system.
> it is an MS EULA that only applies to the software.
But according to what you said above, one would get:
"For that to apply you would have to sign an agreement when you bought the software."
So how do you want it?
>the EULA explicitly states [at least for the US]
>that you have the right to return the software
>[specifically] for a full refund if you don't
>agree with the EULA.
But if you don't agree to it, there is no agreement right? And if there is no agreement, what is said in it doesn't apply, right? So it is quite pointless to put into an agreement what applies if you do NOT agree to it.
>All it will cost the computer maker presumably is
>the time it takes for someone to process the request,
>and perhaps mailing costs (if internet purchase for
>example).
But I read this other news that a lost sale is stealing and the software business is losing so much money each year due to lost sales, and now you come and tell me a lost sale doesn't cost them much at all?
>Buying a car is a purchase of a tangible item.
>Buying a game like this is the purchase of a license.
A copy of a game is also a tangible item. One might need some sort of licens in ADDITION in some countries to use a copy of the game, in others one don't. In any case, one need a copy of the game in one way or another as a license in it self is quite pointless and useless.
>Valve is the publisher, they're publishing via Steam.
I thought these games were bought from shops (in Thailand) and also in other countries. Those were the type of games discussed above. In such a case, even iv Valve doesn't "exist" here, someone selling their products do and will thus take the blame/whatever and can in turn sort it out with Valve, ultimately not doing buissiness if it makes them end up in troubble. So even if one can escape going directly to court, one can end up losing the business.
>I don't see why not. It's not like you obtain any kind of ownership of the game when you purchase it.
Ehh, yes it is. That is the whole concept of the purchase thing, a change of ownership. When you buy something you become the owner. It is a very old concept and covered in law for centuries.
>You are only purchasing the (revokeable by them I'm sure) right to
>use their software under the terms that Valve sets.
Why would you need to buy a right to use if there is nothing forbiding or preventing use to start with? Besides, even if you DID buy some "use right" you still need a copy of the game. How would you get your copy?
Do note that even copyright law doesn't give use (ordninasry use as in playing, listening, reading and so on) as a right to the copyright holder. Hence it is not something they can control or give away as rights to others since they don't have it to start with. The exact rights they have can vary somewhat between countries but use is typically not included.
>They can do anything they want with their own system.
Not really. They can if they keep it to themselves. However, if they sell goods or services to consumers, they no longer can do "anything they wany". Depending quite a lot on which country you look at the laws on what can and can't be done vary, but there aren't many that allows "anything they want".
>But the various analogies do help point out how absurd are some parts of copyright law,
I don't agree, the examples in themselves can show that. Further, since the analogies tend to not be analogies at all but differ quite a lot, they don't really show anything but the fact that people bases the view on something not at all related to copyright. I do agree about the fact that some parts of copyright has turned quite absurd and one could need a good revamp (is that the word?).
>a better analogy would be
Perhaps, but why would one need to make an analogy to start with? What is so unclear about the first case?
Besides, I don't agree that your example or analogy is the same though. From a copyright perspective it differes, at least in some countries. Many countries for example have much more strict rules on what copies one can make of computer software than of books. In your example you make the copy from your own book, but the copy of the software is made from one on the net. Again, in many countries there is a difference from a copyright perspective on that. So you can have the book case not be infringment and the software one be. Not sure what this all had to do with my previous post though.
>To most people I've talked to "Copyright infringement"
>IS a form of stealing, since they personalize the issue.
But people does NOT do the "everything that is copyright infringment and ONLY that that is copyright infringement is what should be call stealing (in addition to normal stealing). They tend to go out making all sorts of examples of how something is "stolen", taken away or whatever and thus claim it is OK to call it stealing. The problem is, the criteria for copyright infringment has nothing to do with anything being taken at all and thus one end up with all sort of things that would, to those people still be stealing, yet not being copyright infringment at all!!
You yourself do that and is a good example of why it is bad to call it stealing:
>(If I wrote a book and people infringed the copyright by making their
>own copy and selling it, they're efectively stealing money from me.)
Apart from not being sure how it is "effectively stealing money from you", no matter how you explain it, about you not geting money you "should" get or something, there will be many similar or exact same cases were, even if you can show someone did "steal money" from you, it is not copyright infringment.
An example, based on the copyright law of my own country that allows copying for private use, and is as similar to your example as possible. Instead of selling the copy I create, I sell the original. From your, as the writer, point of view it is exactly the same, no matter how you define your "effectively stealing money from me" it is a case that is NOT copyright infringment and not illegal in any other way either.
One can make up all sort of other such examples for whatever case you like to justufy the "stealing" with and for other countries to suit their copyright laws as well (I picked that of my own country since I am very familiar with it).
So yes, it DOES matter and if there is according to you, no real difference, why not use the actual correct terminology to start with instead of having to make up all sort of examples and analogies to try to explain why using the wrong terminology is OK? It tends to be far less confusing and avoid making people get the wrong ideas of how copyright work (in making people think it is similar to stealing when it is not at all).