But there is a difference in granting someone the right/license to use what you have patented and just promise you won't take action (I would say you still infringe for example). It doesn't for example prevent someone else to take action. What if IBM should sell their patents to someone else? You then have no protection. There is also an increasing trent to turn almost every infringement of various "ip" rights into criminal offense. What if this would apply to patent infringement, then you have the goverment that could take action against your crime since you really have not got the license or to the patent, just a promise IBM will not do anything. Just some examples of problems I would say.
> If you are an employee, it is a different story.
Does this apply to all types of work in German copyright law? Because in Sweden, the employer part only applies to computer software, not to other types of works. You know how it is in Germany?
>The can create a licensing saying they own all the rights.
The problem here is that they can't own the rights the law attributes to someone else. It is not an issue of what they license to their fans, it is an issue of the fans having certain rights they can't give away IF for exmaple they are to make such a movie. So it is not about giving up but about not being able to get some rights from others.
According to Microsoft, any other format than their own new OOXML. The whole reason they created it is, according to themselves, that no other format could handle and be coverted to from their own old formats.
>But on the other hand, people like to say it isn't >theft and then since it's not theft they claim that >whatever isn't must be both legal and moral.
If so, correct those that do that. It doesn't make it any more or less correct to call it theft though. In many cases when people like to call "theft" on something related to copyright though, it is in fact many times not even copyright infringement and hence legal. In other cases it might be infringement and then one should point it out for those that say it is legal. The point I made is that people should call things for what they are and if they happens to be wrong, one can correct them. It is however much easier to correct someone using the correct terminology than the wrong one in my opinion.
>Does it say something about me that when I glanced >at the article I thought it said Pornographic industry?
Yes, that you are person 3748982 that has made such a remark on slashdot and managed to be the first in this thread. I guess it is slightly more creative than posting a "first post" post, but just slightly.
>The one hosting the files, the one that is making the copyrighted >material available is violating the copyright. It doesn't matter >who is technically making the copying operation, it's the actual >spreading that's prohibited. The person that hosts the files has >done something, he has made the material available. Any other >interpretation is insane.
Both making a work available to the public (the uploader) and the creation of a copy (the downloader) can be copyright infringment. So in many cases, both the persons are commiting copyrightinfringement.
On the other hand, in many countries it is perfectly legal to make such copies. So the program can also determine for example WHERE the copying occured or other circumstances that may affect it? It can I assume also determine WHO created the copy. Perhaps the files has been legally bought in such a way that they can be copied (even in the USA)? It is the ACT of copying that is illegal not the possession of a file that hapens to have a copyright.
>Downloading should not be considered infringing, >or "illegal", because it really is no different >than picking up a book found on the street.
Yes, there is a difference in that in one case you create a copy of something (which can, but not always will, be copyright infringement), while in the other you don't. That is really one of the main things copyright is about, the creation of copies.
>Besides, there is no sure way for a person to >determine the copyright status of a file.
It is realtively easy to determine if there is a copyright or not on a specific work in a file. Not sure what else you could mean with "copyright status".
>Yes but you, as a client of some ISP, are responsible >of what goes through your internet line.
Why would you be responsible (for the legal point of view) for what someone else do just because you are a client of some ISP? YOu could be responsible towards the ISP, sure, but not towards anyone else.
>That's why they said that allofmp3.com was robbing them of sales.
Which in many cases can be completely legal despite you and them using the world "robbing", I believe it is common to call it competition in the market. Just because someone manage to use thw world "theft", "steal" or "robbery" to describe something doesn't turn it illegal (not commenting on allofmp3 here, just the use of the worlds). From what I see, people tend to use theft for all sort of things related (and not so related) to copyright infringement ending up claiming things that are perfectly legal being illegal. To avoid confusion and missleading statements, why not use the proper terminolgy from law when one want to discuss the legalness of things?
If you use a trademark to actually sell what it applies to you don't need a permision. That is, if you sell your used car you can of course use the trademarked name of the car when selling it without needing any permission. Trademarks prevents you from using it to sell OTHER products. One of the main points of trademark is to avoid confusion for consumers and other buyers so that they know what they get. You can thus use it without permision (although there is probably countries were it can work differently). In some countries trademark infringement is further limited to only apply to comercial use so that you can't infringe it at all for non comercial uses even applying it to the wrong product for example.
>You have taken away their ability to sell it to you.
Which in many cases is not illegal. People like to call it theft and then since theft is illegal they claim that whatever they called theft must thus be illegal and end up wrong.
>but they do have the right to say if you want to play >our game then you may not accept money from someone outside >of the game for in game services/items/whatever because it's >a private game on private servers, and the TOS you agree to >when you play the game.
Sure, they "have the right" to tell what people can do IN the game. What people (consumers) do with the rest of their life outside their game is not their "right" to tell. Exchanging items and/or gold between characters in the games are perfectly legal and OK and the games even encourage it through several ingame trading functionalities.
>Let's play a game. It's called chess. Now, let's change >the rules so that either of us can buy back any piece we >lose for 20 dollars.
That would require to change the rules of the chess game itself. In MMO games, trading items is allready perfectly legal and typically have built in facilities for it. There is no change of rules needed. The fact that players can interact In addition outside the game has nothing to do with the game itself.
So a French site that turns to French Speaking French people should make sure all and any of its information is correct and relevant for every country in the world? Just because this is a US site doesn't mean that someone commenting on something in another country and argue about what is said on such a page is correct or not based on US laws which was the point I made. It is quite irrellevant. The Original poster commented on the French information which obviously is about Frnech law, so it is quite irrellevant what ever the law in Uganda, Japan or US says. Sure, you can start discussing what it would be like in the USA but that doesn't invalidate the statement made which you tried to do.
>Because US courts have ruled that a service provided for the purpose >of breaking copyright is liable for civil damages (see Napster, et al).
And here I thought that the program came from France on a French website talking about French issues for French people and then you bring up US laws... Oh well.
And a lot of coutntries has made sure that their copyright laws handle it by not including such copying needed for use in the rights of a copyright holder. Thus, such copying is not an infringement.
>More often than not, the only questions for a court in a >contract between businesses and consumers are: 1) was there >proper notice of the terms and 2) are the terms unconscionable?
Wouldn't the first and most important question to answer be if there is a contract at all that has been entered by the two parties. If there is a contract to start with agreed upon, then one can move on to consider your points.
I have no idea about the exact details of US contract law and how one enters them. Were I live, there is really no requirements on formalities (like a signature) except in specific cases. However, there is a requirement that one part has to make an offer for a contract and another that the there has to be shown acceptance for the contract by the other part AND that acceptance has to reach the one making the offer. It is not up until then a contract is actually formed. That would make the typical "click I Agree" not enough to form a contract since even if it would be a valid way to demand acceptance (which one can question) there is often no forwarding of the acceptance to the one making the offer for a contract (typically the software maker, not the shop for example). So how would it work in USA?
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Seems someone has gone through it though and changed the wording slightly between places. I took the first sentence and search and only got that hit but yes, seems the same text with variation in exact wording exists on other palces too.
Slashdot Mirror
>Reporting that Vista respects what is required to play these DRM laden formats "legally" is just pointless.
What "legally" are you refering to?
But there is a difference in granting someone the right/license to use what you have patented and just promise you won't take action (I would say you still infringe for example). It doesn't for example prevent someone else to take action. What if IBM should sell their patents to someone else? You then have no protection. There is also an increasing trent to turn almost every infringement of various "ip" rights into criminal offense. What if this would apply to patent infringement, then you have the goverment that could take action against your crime since you really have not got the license or to the patent, just a promise IBM will not do anything. Just some examples of problems I would say.
You didn't read the article, now did you?
> If you are an employee, it is a different story.
Does this apply to all types of work in German copyright law? Because in Sweden, the employer part only applies to computer software, not to other types of works. You know how it is in Germany?
>The can create a licensing saying they own all the rights.
The problem here is that they can't own the rights the law attributes to someone else. It is not an issue of what they license to their fans, it is an issue of the fans having certain rights they can't give away IF for exmaple they are to make such a movie. So it is not about giving up but about not being able to get some rights from others.
>So what are you paying for: a Disc or
>the Data rights for 1 copy?
For most people, none of those. They pay for one copy of the game.
According to Microsoft, any other format than their own new OOXML. The whole reason they created it is, according to themselves, that no other format could handle and be coverted to from their own old formats.
>But on the other hand, people like to say it isn't
>theft and then since it's not theft they claim that
>whatever isn't must be both legal and moral.
If so, correct those that do that. It doesn't make it any more or less correct to call it theft though. In many cases when people like to call "theft" on something related to copyright though, it is in fact many times not even copyright infringement and hence legal. In other cases it might be infringement and then one should point it out for those that say it is legal. The point I made is that people should call things for what they are and if they happens to be wrong, one can correct them. It is however much easier to correct someone using the correct terminology than the wrong one in my opinion.
>Does it say something about me that when I glanced
>at the article I thought it said Pornographic industry?
Yes, that you are person 3748982 that has made such a remark on slashdot and managed to be the first in this thread. I guess it is slightly more creative than posting a "first post" post, but just slightly.
>The one hosting the files, the one that is making the copyrighted
>material available is violating the copyright. It doesn't matter
>who is technically making the copying operation, it's the actual
>spreading that's prohibited. The person that hosts the files has
>done something, he has made the material available. Any other
>interpretation is insane.
Both making a work available to the public (the uploader) and the creation of a copy (the downloader) can be copyright infringment. So in many cases, both the persons are commiting copyrightinfringement.
On the other hand, in many countries it is perfectly legal to make such copies. So the program can also determine for example WHERE the copying occured or other circumstances that may affect it? It can I assume also determine WHO created the copy. Perhaps the files has been legally bought in such a way that they can be copied (even in the USA)? It is the ACT of copying that is illegal not the possession of a file that hapens to have a copyright.
Sure, that does not, however, mean they can never lie or are not allowed to lie.
>Downloading should not be considered infringing,
>or "illegal", because it really is no different
>than picking up a book found on the street.
Yes, there is a difference in that in one case you create a copy of something (which can, but not always will, be copyright infringement), while in the other you don't. That is really one of the main things copyright is about, the creation of copies.
>Besides, there is no sure way for a person to
>determine the copyright status of a file.
It is realtively easy to determine if there is a copyright or not on a specific work in a file. Not sure what else you could mean with "copyright status".
Since the law covers actualy drugs only, why should he?
>Yes but you, as a client of some ISP, are responsible
>of what goes through your internet line.
Why would you be responsible (for the legal point of view) for what someone else do just because you are a client of some ISP? YOu could be responsible towards the ISP, sure, but not towards anyone else.
>That's why they said that allofmp3.com was robbing them of sales.
Which in many cases can be completely legal despite you and them using the world "robbing", I believe it is common to call it competition in the market. Just because someone manage to use thw world "theft", "steal" or "robbery" to describe something doesn't turn it illegal (not commenting on allofmp3 here, just the use of the worlds). From what I see, people tend to use theft for all sort of things related (and not so related) to copyright infringement ending up claiming things that are perfectly legal being illegal. To avoid confusion and missleading statements, why not use the proper terminolgy from law when one want to discuss the legalness of things?
If you use a trademark to actually sell what it applies to you don't need a permision. That is, if you sell your used car you can of course use the trademarked name of the car when selling it without needing any permission. Trademarks prevents you from using it to sell OTHER products. One of the main points of trademark is to avoid confusion for consumers and other buyers so that they know what they get. You can thus use it without permision (although there is probably countries were it can work differently). In some countries trademark infringement is further limited to only apply to comercial use so that you can't infringe it at all for non comercial uses even applying it to the wrong product for example.
>You have taken away their ability to sell it to you.
Which in many cases is not illegal. People like to call it theft and then since theft is illegal they claim that whatever they called theft must thus be illegal and end up wrong.
>but they do have the right to say if you want to play
>our game then you may not accept money from someone outside
>of the game for in game services/items/whatever because it's
>a private game on private servers, and the TOS you agree to
>when you play the game.
Sure, they "have the right" to tell what people can do IN the game. What people (consumers) do with the rest of their life outside their game is not their "right" to tell. Exchanging items and/or gold between characters in the games are perfectly legal and OK and the games even encourage it through several ingame trading functionalities.
>Let's play a game. It's called chess. Now, let's change
>the rules so that either of us can buy back any piece we
>lose for 20 dollars.
That would require to change the rules of the chess game itself. In MMO games, trading items is allready perfectly legal and typically have built in facilities for it. There is no change of rules needed. The fact that players can interact In addition outside the game has nothing to do with the game itself.
So a French site that turns to French Speaking French people should make sure all and any of its information is correct and relevant for every country in the world? Just because this is a US site doesn't mean that someone commenting on something in another country and argue about what is said on such a page is correct or not based on US laws which was the point I made. It is quite irrellevant. The Original poster commented on the French information which obviously is about Frnech law, so it is quite irrellevant what ever the law in Uganda, Japan or US says. Sure, you can start discussing what it would be like in the USA but that doesn't invalidate the statement made which you tried to do.
>Because US courts have ruled that a service provided for the purpose
>of breaking copyright is liable for civil damages (see Napster, et al).
And here I thought that the program came from France on a French website talking about French issues for French people and then you bring up US laws... Oh well.
And a lot of coutntries has made sure that their copyright laws handle it by not including such copying needed for use in the rights of a copyright holder. Thus, such copying is not an infringement.
>More often than not, the only questions for a court in a
>contract between businesses and consumers are: 1) was there
>proper notice of the terms and 2) are the terms unconscionable?
Wouldn't the first and most important question to answer be if there is a contract at all that has been entered by the two parties. If there is a contract to start with agreed upon, then one can move on to consider your points.
I have no idea about the exact details of US contract law and how one enters them. Were I live, there is really no requirements on formalities (like a signature) except in specific cases. However, there is a requirement that one part has to make an offer for a contract and another that the there has to be shown acceptance for the contract by the other part AND that acceptance has to reach the one making the offer. It is not up until then a contract is actually formed. That would make the typical "click I Agree" not enough to form a contract since even if it would be a valid way to demand acceptance (which one can question) there is often no forwarding of the acceptance to the one making the offer for a contract (typically the software maker, not the shop for example). So how would it work in USA?
Seems someone has gone through it though and changed the wording slightly between places. I took the first sentence and search and only got that hit but yes, seems the same text with variation in exact wording exists on other palces too.