So, what is the problem? There is nothing that demands you have a license to use something that is copyright protected. You don't need it to read books, you don't need it to listen to music and you don't need it to use software. Sure, the ones MAKING music, software and so on wants you to believe you need it, but there is nothing in copyright laws that says so.
Sure, when you buy something, it is possible to include some sort of agreement made WHEN you buy it that govern the purchase, but it is not required. That has nothing to do with copyright though but with normal (consumer)sale laws.
>The real problem is that when the feds come >knocking on your door, you aren't going to have a >license for that CD and they're going to bust you >for it. Microsoft isn't going to help you then, >unless for some reason they kept a list of names >of people to whom they distributed the CDs.
So? It is not illegal to not have a license for copyright protected material just to use it (even less to own it or possess it). This is true for books, music,, software and so on. So there is really no problem.
>It's important because of the way copyright law >is structured: you may not exceed your (quite >limited) rights under copyright law without >license from the copyright holder
I am not sure about the copyright laws in your country, but in most countries this is not true. Actually, the copyright laws doesn't give YOU the "quite limited" rights. What they tell is a few things you can NOT do hence give those things exclusively to the copyright holder. They are basically all about copying, distribution and so on (although exception to the exclusivness even there exists). Everything else is not restircted, hence allowed.
Using a program, reading a book, lending it to someone else and so on, are all things NOT exclusive to the copyight holder.
There is nothing in the copyright law (at least not in my country, no idea about yours), that says you can't use something protected by copyright without a license. There is nothing such about software, books, music or anything else. SUre, many "content providers" want you to believe that is so and appearantly Microsotf writes it on its home page, but that does not make it true. Nor does printing it on a CD make it true either.
No privacy, no crticism of the war, no critcism of the government.....just wait a few more years and it has turned into what happens in basically all opressive and dictatorship reguemes. Nothing allowed if it in any way it is against the stat and its security. Makes countries like China, for example, seems like a great place to live in.
>The "fair use" concept varies from country to >country, and has different names (such as "fair >dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside >the USA.
Yes, in many countries (Sweden for example), you are allowed to make copies for yourself, family and close friends (there is an exception to this on computer software though). So it is perfectly legal to make a copy of a CD you have and give it to your friend or to have an exctra copy in the car.
>My employer has "requested" that I write a screen >scraper to grab information from a competitor's >site. The data will then be put into our >databases, and sold as our own.
If what is grabed is protected under copyright laws, it is of course not legal. If it is just facts, it would be OK as long as you don't also grab and resell the actual compilation and presentation of the facts.
>This is in violation of the competitor's terms of >agreement, and I have thus far not done this.
Not clear here. What terms of agreement? Are the information going to be taken from an open web page? Or is it information only available to your company (and anyone else) after having made some sort of agreement?
If the Terms of Agreement is simply some page on their webpage, just don't agree to it:) After all, you do not in any way need some special permission or agreement to read a web page.
>As far as I am aware, the law is very clear on >this - individual pieces of information are not >copyrightable, but a collection of that >information is copyrightable. The difference >between a phone number and the phone book.
Yes, so you can't copy the phone book. The facts in the phone book are still not under copyright protection and can thus be copied. You just must make your own compilation and presentation of them. It is that, the compilation and presentation that is protected, not the individual facts.
The next thing you know, they won't sell them to you, they will license you to wear it. You will find a huge piece of paper when you first try to put them on. It will say you did not in fact buy the shirt only licensed it and by weraing them you agree to the license. Of course, you are then not allowed to let anyone else use the shirt. IN fact, they may at any time actually enter your homw to check that you actually have license for ALL your clothes and they may even at any time modify their short (that you licensed) in any way they want, like puting in short sleeves instead of long and changing thr colour of it. Well, it is a 10 page thing, I won't go through it all here.
Some of those songs were much more valuable. They are normalizing it to average music value and that turns out as the equivalency of $60 million. Ask RIAA or MPAA if you need more information on how to do it properly.
>So you're argument is that its the *number* of >times it goes to court that makes it acceptable. >Norway being 3 max?
No, I was just saying that such a system would not be realistically possible at all.
In any case, as mentioned in other posts, the "appeal" is not a new trial, it is still the same one, just the higher court taking a look at it. You can still never start a new trial of the same crime.
I really have not much knowledge of, for example, the american court system in this case, perhaps you are trying to put this system of trials and appeal into your own systems courts and end up with a strange situation. hard to tell.
The courts of the second instance differ some from the initial courts in the composition of the judges for example. Also, as said in other posts, the lower court's verdict (if one appeal) will NOT be valid and take effect since the trial in effect is then not over and will continue (but moved to a higher court).
>The group estimates that piracy costs the U.S. >motion picture industry $3.0 billion annually in >lost sales
I always wonder about that "cost". Isn't cost something you get when you spend money? What are they spending those 3 billions on? For some reason they equate "loss of possible revenues" with cost (because it sounds "better" for them?).
If you want to calculate that way I would be millionare (and cost them a million) if I copied enough movies and music. The fact that I might not even have close to that money seems irellevant to the cost calculus.
In similar way, if someone convince me of buying a bicylcle instead of a car I would cost the car company money.
It doesn't work out the cost is for the most part money that not even exists so how can it then be a cost? I suppose that if you claim it to be a cost enough times, people believe you:(
>Correct, in America they'd have to file a civil >lawsuit once he was found innocent and takeaway >his heisman
But the trial is not over yet, nor has he been found innocent. The trial is still going on, it is just moved from the lower court case into the intermediate one.
>Using your argument, you could make a law in some >third world dictatorship saying that someone >isn't innocent until the state decides to stop >appealing the case.
That would require you to set up an almost infinite number of levels of courts. The appeal here is for a higher instance to look at the case and see if it was done properly. The judges for example here in Sweden are at the higher instance all lawyers while at the first instance they are not, most are normal people (not a jury but still not lawyers). So it is still the same trial the system just divide the trial up to be done at various stages but with the possibility to end it before it reaches the highest one if both sides agree to it.
You can still not start a new trial again (which always start at the lowest case). Neither can a trial go back down in courts and so on.
In criminal cases you don't have to pay your own expenses (do you in USA?).
In civil cases (at least in Sweden but in many other European countries too I think), the loser pay both sides costs. In part that is due to preventing pointless cases just because you had more money. It has other drawbacks of course but that is one of the advantages.
Actually you can't here either. What basically happens is that if either side is not happy with the verdict, they can kick the same case upwards to the next higher court. One can't initate a new case of the same crime. So basically this is not a new trial it is the same at a higher instance.
The constitution of the court vaies some too based on level. Not fully sure about Norway but in Sweden in the lowest level, you have a judge who is a lawyer, but also a few lay assessors (is that the name? found it in a dictionary) which are ordinary people, not lawyers (it is NOT a jury, they basically work at the court and have many cases). They are supposed to sort of represent the people, common sense and such. In the intermediate level all the judges (which make the decision) are lawyers.
So basically, either side can appeal (twice at most since that ends up in SUpreme Court but usually only once in most cases). But one can't start a new case on the same crime.
>Here is how it works in Sweden, which I suppose >has a similar system.
But according to the post below it appears the Norwegian system is almost identical.
The second instance typically always take cases. Both sides in a case can appeal regardless of the verdict. So for example if the prosecutor argued for, say, 5 year in prison and the court went with 2, the prosecutor can appeal wanting a longer sentence. The defendant can also appeal wanting a shorter one or perheaps wanting a "not guilty". So you can appeal not only the guilty part but also the actual penalty.
Note that this is NOT making a new case, it is still the old case, it is just redone again in a higher court. If appealed, the ruling of the lower court will not be considered having taken effect.
The same would apply with the highest court, with the exception as stated that it only take cases of prinipal interest, to set precedence and test new laws. Lower courts can NOT set precedence like in for example USA, so you can't use old cases (except from the supreeme court) in your argumentation.
Still you can NOT be charged with the same crime twice. That is once the case is over (in whatever instance it ended up in) the prosecutor can't start a new one again. The only exception is if there is new evidence and circumstances to go with the old ones can not be used again in such a new case which makes it very hard and rare for such situations.
>Software is different than hardware or a suit or >a toaster.
Not really. The only difference is that sowftware is also goveren by copyright laws. However, copyright laws does not say that yot claim as many seems to think that you can't buy something like a book or computer program just because someone has copyright to it. Copyright laws only prevent someone from making copies, publicly perform and so on.
>It's really just the license that you own,
I might not be good at english terminology, but you don't "own" licenses. Licenses is basically an agreement you make, you don't own agreements. In any case, the fact that you should "just" own a licence is not nessecarilly true. Copyright laws for example does not claim that. It is pretty much up to the individual case. You can for example not own a car but instead rent it, that does not mean you can't own and buy cars.
> you can not do whatever you want with the >software.
Unless otherwise agreed, you can do anything that is not in violation with copyright laws (or other appilcable laws). None of those regulate use though, but things like copying, distribution and such.
> If you buy a copy of Windows in the store, you >would get a license and media that the software >is contained on.
If you BUY something as you say, then you have bought it. That is not open for debat. Buying things are typically covered by sale or consumer sales laws (is that the words?).
Sure, one could instead sign (and even pay in whatever way is agreed) a contract or license instead of buying in the shop, but that has so far never happened to me.
> The license grants you the right to install it >on one or two computers, probably.. but no more >and only if you are the primary user. You can't >put that copy on every machine in your >organization, you only have one license.
You could not put multiple copies in any case since copyright laws forbid that. So unless specifically granted, you could not do it. Doesn't need any license to prevent (or allow) that anyway.
>Likewise, I can't make changes to linux and >market it as a closed-source product called >linux-X without providing the sourcecode.
No, since it is covered by copyright laws which forbid that. Again, that has nothing to do with any licenses and such.
>I think that because of the unusual nature of >software,
I don't see anything unusual about software at all. Not anything more "unusual" than for example books, music, or indeed a car or suit (those two last would normally not have any copyrights attached to them).
> a lot of people just do not understand what >kind of documentation is required to prove >ownership of software.
If you have bought something, you normally don't have to be able to proof ownership at all. On the contrary.
The most logical solution is to just keep some kind of license key or paper license that came with the software. But.. not all software has paper documentation, you could buy software over the Internet and only receive an email receipt. Also, some OEMs place the Windows license key on the chassis of the computer.. bad idea. These are known for being lifted from public areas like computer labs and libraries. Documentation like that should be kept in filing cabinets, how else could you prove ownership easily?
Heh, regarding the egg part, I think one (or both) of us have not understood the other one. It seems we actually agree with each other I would say.
For some reason, people tend to think of copyright as ownership (which it is not) and then think that just because you don't hold the copyright, you can't own something and can't do anything and so on. When it is actually to the contrary, you can indeed own and do anything you want EXCEPT a few well defined actions in the copyright laws.
In part I think the blame might to be on the intelectual "property" which makes people tend to treat it as physical properties and handle copyright to something as ownership of property. This is of course great for media cooperations since it gives them more power and they certainly do all they can to twist copyright in that direction. To bad people fall for it believeing it is allready like that.
> only problem is coming up with what both >parties agree to be the fair use definition of >"copyright".
Could be. In general, I would say it should allready have been resolved. Copyright is nothing new and there are probably in most countries many court decisions to sort it out. The main problem seems to be that for some reason, people think that now with digital "media" (meaning content, not container) the existing copyright laws does not work. I don't see that, they seem to work very well and cover all the nessecary. All changes or additions to the copyright laws done to handle this new digital word seems to actually add new things to copyright that has not existed before, which is bad.
>I feel committed to the "like a book" doctrine. >I feel when I pay the purchase price, I am >entitled to personal use of the work.
Actually, you should be entiteled to ANY use that is not specifically disallowed by the copyright law. Media coorperations wants you to believe that you have no rights it seems and that copyright laws forbids EVERYTHING, including use which is not true. In addition they work hard to actually change the copyright laws to be that way as well.
> I feel a >lot of people get confused with media. Media is >only the "box" the "work" was delivered in. I >feel I purchased the "work",
Yes but here is were many people go wrong, they believe in the media's (media coorperations, that is those holding many copyrights) propaganda claiming that you don't "own" (equallying holding copyright with owning) the actual work and thus you can't possibly have bought it since you don't own it you can't do anything with it and have no rights. Oh well.
One of the most important thing in my opinion is to actually educate people about what copyright actual is and mean. Many does not know or understand it, believeing in whatever they are told (often by big media coorperations). WHen enough people believe in it, one claim the current copyright laws does not cover it (well, doh, it was not true what was made people to believe) and that changes are needed and so on. Sad:(
So with better information about what copyright actually is and how it works, it would be easier to fight that behaviour as well and prevent changes in copyright laws for the worse in the future.
> I see the media as only being a carrier for the >work, much as I see a bag as a carrier for its >contents.
Yeah, but it is the content you want/buy, otherwise you would go out and buy a blank CD, not a music CD.
>I still strongly adhere to the concept that I >have purchased a copy of the work,
Yup, and thus you own that copy (just as you own a particular "copy" of a football if you buy it). You do NOT hold the copyright to the copy though. As such, you can do anything you want with your copy as long as it is not one of the things prevented by copyright. Rather simple really.
>What I don't own is the content: I am prohibited >from reprinting what's in the book.
No, you hold (or own, if that is the correct english word) the COPYRIGHT to the content. That does not mean you don't own the content of that particular copy. I think that is an important difference.
Copyright is not primarily about telling who owns something, but rather to give the copyright holder some exclusiv (with exceptions) right to the content. Those exlcusive rights only cover a few things like publishing, copying and distribution. Most other things it does not cover at all and thus does not prevent. If you simply claim "you don't own the content", that sugest you can't do ANYTHING with it and that what is normal for ownership of items would also aply which it doesn't.
In Sweden the copyright laws limits the right of the copyright holder in that someone might still make copies for "private use" (not sure if this is the best translation though, perhaps calling it fair use is better).
More precisely what this "private use" means has been established both before the law was written but more importantly in various court cases afterwards. Basically you can make copies (in limited ammounts, that is, a few copies) for yourself, your family or close friends. So it is perfectly legal to copy a music CD and give to a close friend for example.
The exception to the above is for computer programs which may not be copied even for private use.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what is the problem? There is nothing that demands you have a license to use something that is copyright protected. You don't need it to read books, you don't need it to listen to music and you don't need it to use software. Sure, the ones MAKING music, software and so on wants you to believe you need it, but there is nothing in copyright laws that says so.
Sure, when you buy something, it is possible to include some sort of agreement made WHEN you buy it that govern the purchase, but it is not required. That has nothing to do with copyright though but with normal (consumer)sale laws.
>The real problem is that when the feds come
>knocking on your door, you aren't going to have a
>license for that CD and they're going to bust you
>for it. Microsoft isn't going to help you then,
>unless for some reason they kept a list of names
>of people to whom they distributed the CDs.
So? It is not illegal to not have a license for copyright protected material just to use it (even less to own it or possess it). This is true for books, music,, software and so on. So there is really no problem.
>It's important because of the way copyright law
>is structured: you may not exceed your (quite
>limited) rights under copyright law without
>license from the copyright holder
I am not sure about the copyright laws in your country, but in most countries this is not true. Actually, the copyright laws doesn't give YOU the "quite limited" rights. What they tell is a few things you can NOT do hence give those things exclusively to the copyright holder. They are basically all about copying, distribution and so on (although exception to the exclusivness even there exists). Everything else is not restircted, hence allowed.
Using a program, reading a book, lending it to someone else and so on, are all things NOT exclusive to the copyight holder.
There is nothing in the copyright law (at least not in my country, no idea about yours), that says you can't use something protected by copyright without a license. There is nothing such about software, books, music or anything else. SUre, many "content providers" want you to believe that is so and appearantly Microsotf writes it on its home page, but that does not make it true. Nor does printing it on a CD make it true either.
No privacy, no crticism of the war, no critcism of the government.....just wait a few more years and it has turned into what happens in basically all opressive and dictatorship reguemes. Nothing allowed if it in any way it is against the stat and its security. Makes countries like China, for example, seems like a great place to live in.
No, it is the same case pushed to a higher level of the court.
>The "fair use" concept varies from country to
>country, and has different names (such as "fair
>dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside
>the USA.
Yes, in many countries (Sweden for example), you are allowed to make copies for yourself, family and close friends (there is an exception to this on computer software though). So it is perfectly legal to make a copy of a CD you have and give it to your friend or to have an exctra copy in the car.
>My employer has "requested" that I write a screen
:) After all, you do not in any way need some special permission or agreement to read a web page.
>scraper to grab information from a competitor's
>site. The data will then be put into our
>databases, and sold as our own.
If what is grabed is protected under copyright laws, it is of course not legal. If it is just facts, it would be OK as long as you don't also grab and resell the actual compilation and presentation of the facts.
>This is in violation of the competitor's terms of
>agreement, and I have thus far not done this.
Not clear here. What terms of agreement? Are the information going to be taken from an open web page? Or is it information only available to your company (and anyone else) after having made some sort of agreement?
If the Terms of Agreement is simply some page on their webpage, just don't agree to it
>As far as I am aware, the law is very clear on
>this - individual pieces of information are not
>copyrightable, but a collection of that
>information is copyrightable. The difference
>between a phone number and the phone book.
Yes, so you can't copy the phone book. The facts in the phone book are still not under copyright protection and can thus be copied. You just must make your own compilation and presentation of them. It is that, the compilation and presentation that is protected, not the individual facts.
The next thing you know, they won't sell them to you, they will license you to wear it. You will find a huge piece of paper when you first try to put them on. It will say you did not in fact buy the shirt only licensed it and by weraing them you agree to the license. Of course, you are then not allowed to let anyone else use the shirt. IN fact, they may at any time actually enter your homw to check that you actually have license for ALL your clothes and they may even at any time modify their short (that you licensed) in any way they want, like puting in short sleeves instead of long and changing thr colour of it. Well, it is a 10 page thing, I won't go through it all here.
Oh well, on the other hand lets hope not...
Some of those songs were much more valuable. They are normalizing it to average music value and that turns out as the equivalency of $60 million. Ask RIAA or MPAA if you need more information on how to do it properly.
>So you're argument is that its the *number* of
>times it goes to court that makes it acceptable.
>Norway being 3 max?
No, I was just saying that such a system would not be realistically possible at all.
In any case, as mentioned in other posts, the "appeal" is not a new trial, it is still the same one, just the higher court taking a look at it. You can still never start a new trial of the same crime.
I really have not much knowledge of, for example, the american court system in this case, perhaps you are trying to put this system of trials and appeal into your own systems courts and end up with a strange situation. hard to tell.
The courts of the second instance differ some from the initial courts in the composition of the judges for example. Also, as said in other posts, the lower court's verdict (if one appeal) will NOT be valid and take effect since the trial in effect is then not over and will continue (but moved to a higher court).
>The group estimates that piracy costs the U.S.
:(
>motion picture industry $3.0 billion annually in
>lost sales
I always wonder about that "cost". Isn't cost something you get when you spend money? What are they spending those 3 billions on? For some reason they equate "loss of possible revenues" with cost (because it sounds "better" for them?).
If you want to calculate that way I would be millionare (and cost them a million) if I copied enough movies and music. The fact that I might not even have close to that money seems irellevant to the cost calculus.
In similar way, if someone convince me of buying a bicylcle instead of a car I would cost the car company money.
It doesn't work out the cost is for the most part money that not even exists so how can it then be a cost? I suppose that if you claim it to be a cost enough times, people believe you
>Correct, in America they'd have to file a civil
>lawsuit once he was found innocent and takeaway
>his heisman
But the trial is not over yet, nor has he been found innocent. The trial is still going on, it is just moved from the lower court case into the intermediate one.
>Using your argument, you could make a law in some
>third world dictatorship saying that someone
>isn't innocent until the state decides to stop
>appealing the case.
That would require you to set up an almost infinite number of levels of courts. The appeal here is for a higher instance to look at the case and see if it was done properly. The judges for example here in Sweden are at the higher instance all lawyers while at the first instance they are not, most are normal people (not a jury but still not lawyers). So it is still the same trial the system just divide the trial up to be done at various stages but with the possibility to end it before it reaches the highest one if both sides agree to it.
You can still not start a new trial again (which always start at the lowest case). Neither can a trial go back down in courts and so on.
In criminal cases you don't have to pay your own expenses (do you in USA?).
In civil cases (at least in Sweden but in many other European countries too I think), the loser pay both sides costs. In part that is due to preventing pointless cases just because you had more money. It has other drawbacks of course but that is one of the advantages.
Actually you can't here either. What basically happens is that if either side is not happy with the verdict, they can kick the same case upwards to the next higher court. One can't initate a new case of the same crime. So basically this is not a new trial it is the same at a higher instance.
The constitution of the court vaies some too based on level. Not fully sure about Norway but in Sweden in the lowest level, you have a judge who is a lawyer, but also a few lay assessors (is that the name? found it in a dictionary) which are ordinary people, not lawyers (it is NOT a jury, they basically work at the court and have many cases). They are supposed to sort of represent the people, common sense and such. In the intermediate level all the judges (which make the decision) are lawyers.
So basically, either side can appeal (twice at most since that ends up in SUpreme Court but usually only once in most cases). But one can't start a new case on the same crime.
>Here is how it works in Sweden, which I suppose
>has a similar system.
But according to the post below it appears the Norwegian system is almost identical.
The second instance typically always take cases. Both sides in a case can appeal regardless of the verdict. So for example if the prosecutor argued for, say, 5 year in prison and the court went with 2, the prosecutor can appeal wanting a longer sentence. The defendant can also appeal wanting a shorter one or perheaps wanting a "not guilty". So you can appeal not only the guilty part but also the actual penalty.
Note that this is NOT making a new case, it is still the old case, it is just redone again in a higher court. If appealed, the ruling of the lower court will not be considered having taken effect.
The same would apply with the highest court, with the exception as stated that it only take cases of prinipal interest, to set precedence and test new laws. Lower courts can NOT set precedence like in for example USA, so you can't use old cases (except from the supreeme court) in your argumentation.
Still you can NOT be charged with the same crime twice. That is once the case is over (in whatever instance it ended up in) the prosecutor can't start a new one again. The only exception is if there is new evidence and circumstances to go with the old ones can not be used again in such a new case which makes it very hard and rare for such situations.
Yes I have beta tested, but all the times it has been Blizzard asking me if I wanted to join :)
I actually declined WC3 though since I was out if time and it is not a game type I really like much.
Perhaps there comes other more interesting games in the future.
>Software is different than hardware or a suit or
>a toaster.
Not really. The only difference is that sowftware is also goveren by copyright laws. However, copyright laws does not say that yot claim as many seems to think that you can't buy something like a book or computer program just because someone has copyright to it. Copyright laws only prevent someone from making copies, publicly perform and so on.
>It's really just the license that you own,
I might not be good at english terminology, but you don't "own" licenses. Licenses is basically an agreement you make, you don't own agreements. In any case, the fact that you should "just" own a licence is not nessecarilly true. Copyright laws for example does not claim that. It is pretty much up to the individual case. You can for example not own a car but instead rent it, that does not mean you can't own and buy cars.
> you can not do whatever you want with the
>software.
Unless otherwise agreed, you can do anything that is not in violation with copyright laws (or other appilcable laws). None of those regulate use though, but things like copying, distribution and such.
> If you buy a copy of Windows in the store, you
>would get a license and media that the software
>is contained on.
If you BUY something as you say, then you have bought it. That is not open for debat. Buying things are typically covered by sale or consumer sales laws (is that the words?).
Sure, one could instead sign (and even pay in whatever way is agreed) a contract or license instead of buying in the shop, but that has so far never happened to me.
> The license grants you the right to install it
>on one or two computers, probably.. but no more
>and only if you are the primary user. You can't
>put that copy on every machine in your
>organization, you only have one license.
You could not put multiple copies in any case since copyright laws forbid that. So unless specifically granted, you could not do it. Doesn't need any license to prevent (or allow) that anyway.
>Likewise, I can't make changes to linux and
>market it as a closed-source product called
>linux-X without providing the sourcecode.
No, since it is covered by copyright laws which forbid that. Again, that has nothing to do with any licenses and such.
>I think that because of the unusual nature of
>software,
I don't see anything unusual about software at all. Not anything more "unusual" than for example books, music, or indeed a car or suit (those two last would normally not have any copyrights attached to them).
> a lot of people just do not understand what
>kind of documentation is required to prove
>ownership of software.
If you have bought something, you normally don't have to be able to proof ownership at all. On the contrary.
The most logical solution is to just keep some kind of license key or paper license that came with the software. But.. not all software has paper documentation, you could buy software over the Internet and only receive an email receipt. Also, some OEMs place the Windows license key on the chassis of the computer.. bad idea. These are known for being lifted from public areas like computer labs and libraries. Documentation like that should be kept in filing cabinets, how else could you prove ownership easily?
Heh, regarding the egg part, I think one (or both) of us have not understood the other one. It seems we actually agree with each other I would say.
:(
For some reason, people tend to think of copyright as ownership (which it is not) and then think that just because you don't hold the copyright, you can't own something and can't do anything and so on. When it is actually to the contrary, you can indeed own and do anything you want EXCEPT a few well defined actions in the copyright laws.
In part I think the blame might to be on the intelectual "property" which makes people tend to treat it as physical properties and handle copyright to something as ownership of property. This is of course great for media cooperations since it gives them more power and they certainly do all they can to twist copyright in that direction. To bad people fall for it believeing it is allready like that.
> only problem is coming up with what both
>parties agree to be the fair use definition of
>"copyright".
Could be. In general, I would say it should allready have been resolved. Copyright is nothing new and there are probably in most countries many court decisions to sort it out. The main problem seems to be that for some reason, people think that now with digital "media" (meaning content, not container) the existing copyright laws does not work. I don't see that, they seem to work very well and cover all the nessecary. All changes or additions to the copyright laws done to handle this new digital word seems to actually add new things to copyright that has not existed before, which is bad.
>I feel committed to the "like a book" doctrine.
>I feel when I pay the purchase price, I am
>entitled to personal use of the work.
Actually, you should be entiteled to ANY use that is not specifically disallowed by the copyright law. Media coorperations wants you to believe that you have no rights it seems and that copyright laws forbids EVERYTHING, including use which is not true. In addition they work hard to actually change the copyright laws to be that way as well.
> I feel a
>lot of people get confused with media. Media is
>only the "box" the "work" was delivered in. I
>feel I purchased the "work",
Yes but here is were many people go wrong, they believe in the media's (media coorperations, that is those holding many copyrights) propaganda claiming that you don't "own" (equallying holding copyright with owning) the actual work and thus you can't possibly have bought it since you don't own it you can't do anything with it and have no rights. Oh well.
One of the most important thing in my opinion is to actually educate people about what copyright actual is and mean. Many does not know or understand it, believeing in whatever they are told (often by big media coorperations). WHen enough people believe in it, one claim the current copyright laws does not cover it (well, doh, it was not true what was made people to believe) and that changes are needed and so on. Sad
So with better information about what copyright actually is and how it works, it would be easier to fight that behaviour as well and prevent changes in copyright laws for the worse in the future.
> I see the media as only being a carrier for the
>work, much as I see a bag as a carrier for its
>contents.
Yeah, but it is the content you want/buy, otherwise you would go out and buy a blank CD, not a music CD.
>I still strongly adhere to the concept that I
>have purchased a copy of the work,
Yup, and thus you own that copy (just as you own a particular "copy" of a football if you buy it). You do NOT hold the copyright to the copy though. As such, you can do anything you want with your copy as long as it is not one of the things prevented by copyright. Rather simple really.
>What I don't own is the content: I am prohibited
>from reprinting what's in the book.
No, you hold (or own, if that is the correct english word) the COPYRIGHT to the content. That does not mean you don't own the content of that particular copy. I think that is an important difference.
Copyright is not primarily about telling who owns something, but rather to give the copyright holder some exclusiv (with exceptions) right to the content. Those exlcusive rights only cover a few things like publishing, copying and distribution. Most other things it does not cover at all and thus does not prevent. If you simply claim "you don't own the content", that sugest you can't do ANYTHING with it and that what is normal for ownership of items would also aply which it doesn't.
>Why would this be bad? Vivendi make **PC** games.
>Not console games!
Well, Blizzard is working on that game called Starcraft: Ghost. It is for console only, not PC.
Here you can find translations of most countrie's copyright laws:
http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/
In Sweden the copyright laws limits the right of the copyright holder in that someone might still make copies for "private use" (not sure if this is the best translation though, perhaps calling it fair use is better).
More precisely what this "private use" means has been established both before the law was written but more importantly in various court cases afterwards. Basically you can make copies (in limited ammounts, that is, a few copies) for yourself, your family or close friends. So it is perfectly legal to copy a music CD and give to a close friend for example.
The exception to the above is for computer programs which may not be copied even for private use.