>Wouldn't the person uploading to him be the one doing the copyright infringement?
Yes, he would comit copyright infringment as well (the distribution part/making it available to the public, depending a bit on your countries specific copyright law). The downloader would still also commit infringment for the copying (the creation of a copy on the hard disc or wherever it is saved).
>I understand that waranty breaks because of such modifications >(atleast in most countries), but is it actually illegal to do so?
To download a copy of Windows (after having bought a copy) and use the downloaded one? In most countries it would most likely be copyright infringement (both the downloading and then later the use since it would require further copying).
It is possible one can argue that since you got a license through an EULA with the copy you bought, you could very well install the copy you downloded instead (I have not seen it tied to a specific copy), but you still have the problem of infringement when you download it to start with which would be infringement.
But none of them has anything to do with the "don't like the EULA" or similar situation discussed here. Of course, one can always argue about the existance of a EULA to start with that one wasn't aware of is covered about anything you listed:)
>If there's an EULA that you have to accept to play it, >yes, you can return the game if you don't accept it.
Why? Are you refering to some law that gives one that right that covers such EULA?
>That or the EULA is not binding,
The EULA can at most be binding if you agree to it. If you do NOT agree to it, it is of course not binding and doesn't apply. So telling in a EULA (or any other contract) what happens if you do NOT agree to it is quite pointless since it only applies if you agree. (Of course, if some outside law or other agreement applies even if you don't agree, then information about it can of course be valid but a contract offer can't dictate what happens if you do NOT agree to it.)
>What are they gathering that isn't given away by a browser anyway?
There is a difference in gathering and saving for other use and something being avialable (for example to communicate). The privacy policy, by the way, specifically claims the IP address is information that can not be used to identify somsone (they actually tend to use vague terminology such as "may", "generally includes" and so on though). SOmeone should tell them about how other organisations managed to use the IP address to identify people looking for thos commiting copyright infringement.
>License != Contract. >I guess you have consideration. What about >the offer and acceptance? Do you really have >an exchange of promises?
However, the term license is often used for cases were there IS a contract or is part of a contract or as part of the naming of the contract and so on. Which of course causes confusion.
>And are you sure about your statement? I can't imagine any >EU member not honoring copyright and licensing.
Yes, of course they honor copyright and licensing of *copyright related* rights. Use is not in most countries a "right" for the copyright holder. Normal use doesn't infringe on copyright and hence there is no need for any license. Typically, countries has made for example copying needed to use a product non infringning. Similary man countries has exceptions for temporary copies such as those excisting when transimmiting a work. It all leads to the absense of a need for separate license just to use a copy you have be it computer software, books, music or whatever.
I believe one of the "problems" in some countries, for exmaple USA is that the excpetions for certain copies has a requirement of ownership of a copy, however, many other countries has a more lax requirement of "lawfull aquired" or similar (sorr, English is not my native langueg som I might have picked the wrong word here), which also includes situations were you are not the owner but have for example borrowed or rented the program. This is also what is stated in the EU-directive regulating computer software and also I believe the underlaying agreement in WIPO or whatever the organisation computer program was handled in, I recall looking at it to see how the original language and argument went when I looked at the EU-directive conserning it and how it was implemented in Swedish law.
>For example, I would accept if MS-Windows were preloaded >but not usable until the consumer purchased a separate license >for it, at a separate, visible, line-item cost, even if >purchased at the same time.
There are many countries, including several ones in EU that doesn't require you to have any license to use computer software so it would be a bit pointless then to sell separate licenses for it that no one would need.
>This doesn't need a law change either, just >enforce the Microsoft EULA. If you refuse the >contract (EULA) you are entitled to a refund on >the software,
First, WHO should enforce it? At most Microsoft and the user could do it AND it would only be possible if the user agreed to it. If the user refuses it, there is no agreement and what the EULA says is irellevant.
>While we are at it, make it illegal to install >engines in automobiles. After all why should I >not have the freedom to have a Honda engine in my Ford?
In most cases the computer manufacturer and the OS manufacturer are not the same. In fact the seller is typically a third entity as well. For cars it is quite different, the car maker also puts in the engine in in many cases is also the seller.
But people were talking about copying the movies, not the keys (or the complete DVDs). It is trivial to copy the (encrypted) movies and there is no protection of it. What is protected is the ACCESS of the movie. Not all countries have added access as a right to copyright holders or something you cna't circumvent. It is not clear from the news or summary what is the case in Germany.
I have noticed this as well. I studied contract law for a year or two >when I was at college. Certainly not enough to make me a legal expert >but enough for me to realise what a complex subject it is.
On the other hand, the issue was about copyright law (more specifically DMCA), not about contract issues, at least based on the article.
>You have a GPL violation if the license, itself >was not included with distributed GPL code.
You only have a GPL violation if there is an agreement to it to start with. So if it is not included, it is a violatio if there was an agreement and not a violation if there was not an agreement. Of course, there can be copyright infringement as well as many other unlafwull behaviour regardless of the possible GPL violation.
>So the violator no longer has a license for the software >and they must either stop using it or use it without a >license (which is copyright infringement).
What makes you think that using software without a license is copyright infringement? (To be clear, it might be good specifying what country you refer to as well).
Another example is copies needed to actually use the software. Sure, there is such a provision in the US copyright law, but it seems to have a requirement of ownership of a copy of the work which many other countries lack. Cases were one is in a posessio of a copy in legal ways (yet not nessecarilly the owner) should not require special permission.
>Then by your arguement threatening to kill a person should >not be illegal unless you actually kill the person, or at >least try to.
Making threats to another person tends to have its own law that can make it illegal (the threatening in itself) in most countries. Sure, one could add similar laws for copyirhgt. However, here the issue is that they say that making a copy available to others for copying is the same as distributing (and copyright regulate distribution, while laws on murder doesn't tend to cover distribution of the murder threat however, other laws handle the "distribution" of threats). So no, one does not apply to the other and the argument doesn't mean you can threaten anyone.
>- they were actively sitting on the back stoop giving other people's stuff away.
No, they were giving away their own stuff, not other people's stuff. They don't hold the copyirght to the work on their stuff, but the items would still be theirs. That is why such comparisons tend to never end up well.
>'Somehow'? How, exactly? By you uploading it to >a filesharing network, perhaps? There is no other way
Of course there are other ways. They might vary some depending on what country in question the person happens to be in (including travelling to/through). Many countries allows for various legal cases of when copying is perfectly legal. Similary, many countries allows for a change of ownership of a copy (for example thorugh gift, loan, purchase and so on). Just two examples.
Because they want to sell their product someone else in the world? I was commenting on the initial statement that it was the only "legal" way to play that contet, which for most it is not.
Slashdot Mirror
>Wouldn't the person uploading to him be the one doing the copyright infringement?
/making it available to the public, depending a bit on your countries specific copyright law). The downloader would still also commit infringment for the copying (the creation of a copy on the hard disc or wherever it is saved).
Yes, he would comit copyright infringment as well (the distribution part
>I understand that waranty breaks because of such modifications
>(atleast in most countries), but is it actually illegal to do so?
To download a copy of Windows (after having bought a copy) and use the downloaded one? In most countries it would most likely be copyright infringement (both the downloading and then later the use since it would require further copying).
It is possible one can argue that since you got a license through an EULA with the copy you bought, you could very well install the copy you downloded instead (I have not seen it tied to a specific copy), but you still have the problem of infringement when you download it to start with which would be infringement.
But none of them has anything to do with the "don't like the EULA" or similar situation discussed here. Of course, one can always argue about the existance of a EULA to start with that one wasn't aware of is covered about anything you listed :)
>The store *must* accept a return if certain criteria is met.
And what are those criterias?
>If there's an EULA that you have to accept to play it,
>yes, you can return the game if you don't accept it.
Why? Are you refering to some law that gives one that right that covers such EULA?
>That or the EULA is not binding,
The EULA can at most be binding if you agree to it. If you do NOT agree to it, it is of course not binding and doesn't apply. So telling in a EULA (or any other contract) what happens if you do NOT agree to it is quite pointless since it only applies if you agree. (Of course, if some outside law or other agreement applies even if you don't agree, then information about it can of course be valid but a contract offer can't dictate what happens if you do NOT agree to it.)
>What are they gathering that isn't given away by a browser anyway?
There is a difference in gathering and saving for other use and something being avialable (for example to communicate). The privacy policy, by the way, specifically claims the IP address is information that can not be used to identify somsone (they actually tend to use vague terminology such as "may", "generally includes" and so on though). SOmeone should tell them about how other organisations managed to use the IP address to identify people looking for thos commiting copyright infringement.
>it has to be a specific key to a specific piece of suspected evidence
How do they determine WHO they should ask for the key? And what if that person does in fact not have or know the key?
>License != Contract.
>I guess you have consideration. What about
>the offer and acceptance? Do you really have
>an exchange of promises?
However, the term license is often used for cases were there IS a contract or is part of a contract or as part of the naming of the contract and so on. Which of course causes confusion.
>And are you sure about your statement? I can't imagine any
>EU member not honoring copyright and licensing.
Yes, of course they honor copyright and licensing of *copyright related* rights. Use is not in most countries a "right" for the copyright holder. Normal use doesn't infringe on copyright and hence there is no need for any license. Typically, countries has made for example copying needed to use a product non infringning. Similary man countries has exceptions for temporary copies such as those excisting when transimmiting a work. It all leads to the absense of a need for separate license just to use a copy you have be it computer software, books, music or whatever.
I believe one of the "problems" in some countries, for exmaple USA is that the excpetions for certain copies has a requirement of ownership of a copy, however, many other countries has a more lax requirement of "lawfull aquired" or similar (sorr, English is not my native langueg som I might have picked the wrong word here), which also includes situations were you are not the owner but have for example borrowed or rented the program. This is also what is stated in the EU-directive regulating computer software and also I believe the underlaying agreement in WIPO or whatever the organisation computer program was handled in, I recall looking at it to see how the original language and argument went when I looked at the EU-directive conserning it and how it was implemented in Swedish law.
So yes, I am quite sure about my statement.
>For example, I would accept if MS-Windows were preloaded
>but not usable until the consumer purchased a separate license
>for it, at a separate, visible, line-item cost, even if
>purchased at the same time.
There are many countries, including several ones in EU that doesn't require you to have any license to use computer software so it would be a bit pointless then to sell separate licenses for it that no one would need.
>This doesn't need a law change either, just
>enforce the Microsoft EULA. If you refuse the
>contract (EULA) you are entitled to a refund on
>the software,
First, WHO should enforce it? At most Microsoft and the user could do it AND it would only be possible if the user agreed to it. If the user refuses it, there is no agreement and what the EULA says is irellevant.
>While we are at it, make it illegal to install
>engines in automobiles. After all why should I
>not have the freedom to have a Honda engine in my Ford?
In most cases the computer manufacturer and the OS manufacturer are not the same. In fact the seller is typically a third entity as well. For cars it is quite different, the car maker also puts in the engine in in many cases is also the seller.
>Or any other OS?
Perhaps the person, and others, allready got an OS they will use on the computer.
But people were talking about copying the movies, not the keys (or the complete DVDs). It is trivial to copy the (encrypted) movies and there is no protection of it. What is protected is the ACCESS of the movie. Not all countries have added access as a right to copyright holders or something you cna't circumvent. It is not clear from the news or summary what is the case in Germany.
I have noticed this as well. I studied contract law for a year or two
>when I was at college. Certainly not enough to make me a legal expert
>but enough for me to realise what a complex subject it is.
On the other hand, the issue was about copyright law (more specifically DMCA), not about contract issues, at least based on the article.
>You have a GPL violation if the license, itself
>was not included with distributed GPL code.
You only have a GPL violation if there is an agreement to it to start with. So if it is not included, it is a violatio if there was an agreement and not a violation if there was not an agreement. Of course, there can be copyright infringement as well as many other unlafwull behaviour regardless of the possible GPL violation.
>So the violator no longer has a license for the software
>and they must either stop using it or use it without a
>license (which is copyright infringement).
What makes you think that using software without a license is copyright infringement? (To be clear, it might be good specifying what country you refer to as well).
>Educational & backup copies, of course.
Another example is copies needed to actually use the software. Sure, there is such a provision in the US copyright law, but it seems to have a requirement of ownership of a copy of the work which many other countries lack. Cases were one is in a posessio of a copy in legal ways (yet not nessecarilly the owner) should not require special permission.
>Then by your arguement threatening to kill a person should
>not be illegal unless you actually kill the person, or at
>least try to.
Making threats to another person tends to have its own law that can make it illegal (the threatening in itself) in most countries. Sure, one could add similar laws for copyirhgt. However, here the issue is that they say that making a copy available to others for copying is the same as distributing (and copyright regulate distribution, while laws on murder doesn't tend to cover distribution of the murder threat however, other laws handle the "distribution" of threats). So no, one does not apply to the other and the argument doesn't mean you can threaten anyone.
>- they were actively sitting on the back stoop giving other people's stuff away.
No, they were giving away their own stuff, not other people's stuff. They don't hold the copyirght to the work on their stuff, but the items would still be theirs. That is why such comparisons tend to never end up well.
>'Somehow'? How, exactly? By you uploading it to
>a filesharing network, perhaps? There is no other way
Of course there are other ways. They might vary some depending on what country in question the person happens to be in (including travelling to/through). Many countries allows for various legal cases of when copying is perfectly legal. Similary, many countries allows for a change of ownership of a copy (for example thorugh gift, loan, purchase and so on). Just two examples.
But it doesn't make it illegal in those other countries, now would it?
Because they want to sell their product someone else in the world? I was commenting on the initial statement that it was the only "legal" way to play that contet, which for most it is not.
Yes, but it doesn't make it "illegal". The original poster suggested that it was the only legal way to do it which is what I commented on.
Not in my country, no. Why should MIcrosoft selling Vista all over the world implement an american law and force it onto users in other countries?