I believe the Finnish law on this topic is very similar to the Swedish one in that private copying is allowed. However, it is still restricted to a few copies of each work so the initial posters "to all my friends" would have to be changed to "a few friends".
The only restriction for music (and film) is that you are not allowed to hire or get some other 3rd part to do the copying for you. Like in Sweden, such copying of computer software is not at all allowed.
>The only thing they can do is watch P2P sites and the >like to see if any tunes on those sites were purchased >from iTunes and they can identify the user.
The user who once bought a ong, yes. What do that have to do with the song being on a P2P site or who put it there? Or are you claiming that only the one who bought the song from iTunes can ever put the song on a P2P site?
Actually it was about making a copy and sending that copy to someone, not the storage. But otherwise, yeah, it had nothing to do with storing physical documents somewere.
Could it be that since anyone in theory could acess the account using the password/whatever and the server doesn't make sure it is the same person, just someone using the same account and so on, they feel it is "the public"? Seems strange indeed, especially if applied to other things, but perhaps that is part of their reasoning.
It was not the "storing online" that was illegal. It was the copying and sending the music to users that was. And in this case the one doing it was Image City who owned and managed the system. The user was, according to the court an unspecified party hence the infringement. If you own and manage your own service for your own files, it would seem to be no problem at allm at least not in Japan. Of course, if you allow others to download from your servers you would be guilty as well it would seem.
They would have to send it back to the user. It was not the user uploading music that was copyright infringement, it was when the service company sent a copy back that there occured copyright infringement. *If* the same could apply to software, of course Microsoft or anyone else could possibly commit copyright infringement. Of course, just because they would distribute something does not mean they have also agreed to the GPL (or any other contract). They can just be (possibly if in Japan and so on) infringing on copyright.
No, but if it was in Japan, and if someone had the copyright to the work in those documents, and the banks copied those documents and sent them to you again, THEN the bank might commit copyright infringment. At least it was so decided when it was music files and an online service.
You are confusing what the "selling" is about. It is not selling in the traditional sense of changing ownership. Blizzard can claim whatever ownership they want but that is not changed, they still own it afterwards if that is the way you want to view it. What is sold is the possession of the gold (in this case) within the game, something anyone playing the game is free to do as they see fit, there is even several features built into the game for changing possession of gold and items between players and characters.
Next you will probably say that someone owning a Monoply game can charge other players of it with charges of "selling something not belonging to them" if they exchange real money for a street when playing.... I doubt you will get far with that. Nothing would prevent the owner (or someone else for that matter to kick those people out of your game if such practise was not allowed by the rules, but that is something else of course.
The EU directive in question doesn't apply to computer software (an earlier directive does with quite different content). So, in Finland for example, the part about technical measures that protect a work and the circumvention of them does not apply to computer software, it is even specifically said so in the law. The same applies to other countries in EU. Of course, some countries might have added computer software as well to be covered even if the EU directive doesn't (although technically it would have been wrong to do so).
Of course, what you suggest can be illegal anyway for various other reasons, one being that the earlier EU directive basically mandated any copying at all for computer software to be infringement the only exception being if you are in lawfull possession of a copy in which case meaning it can't be one created in an infringing way. In those cases you are allowed to make such copies needed to use the software. It has nothing to do with the CD-key issue though.
Do note that the directive as written only covers protection of "rights" related to copyright, nothing else. That includes of course copying and making it available to the public, it does not cover access though (since accessing a work is not a right of the copyright holder). As an example of a not covered technical measure is one that handle region coding of the DVD. SUch protection is not covered by the directive.
As for the implementation of the directive, countries are allowed to go further, meaning that a country can add other "rights" that can be covered, some countries has, like the USA with its DCMA, added access as such a "right" that is covered by the protection, some has not. AN example of a country that has not is Sweden which discussed the issue quite a bit in the law proposal for example mentioning region coding specifically as an example of a protection not covered. It also said that technological measures that combine protection of covered rights and non coverd rights are also excluded since otherwise it would be a way for a right holder to get protection covered that would not otherwise be so. So basically in Sweden and other countries of the EU which has note expanded the directive, many of the technological meassures protecting media is not covered at all meaning it doesn't matter if they are effective or not or if you circumvent them or not.
Exactly how the Finnish law implemented the directive I don't know, they seem to have gone for extending it though since they have looked at the effectivness. The point is that it is not always easy to get the details by simply reading part (or even the whole) directive and it is even harder to judge individual countries' copyright laws based on it. So it is still impoirtan to know the wording of the Finnish law and how to apply it.
>As far as I am aware the legal situation is that Blizzard claim ownership of all the items/gold etc in WoW.
So? If they want to do that, fine, no one is changing that or claiming otherwise. The gold, after all, will not leave Blizzard and their servers, they are thus still owning and posessing them afterwards. Sure, the possession of it in the game has changed, but that is what the game is about in part, change of possession inside the game. The game has plenty of functionality to facilitate that even, trade windows, auction houses, built in mail system were you can send gold and items along and so on.
>pfft no they don't. i paid for a license to use windows,
Great for you, personally I actually bought a copy. Even though it doesn't mean I hold any copyrights to it, the laws of my country allows me to use the copy without the need of any license, contract or permission at all (regardless of if I would actually own it or not, so borrowing it would be quite OK too for example). Of course, just like with you, I have similary not given any permissions to MS.
So, how does the proposed new law in Canada define "DRM" and what types of DRM does it cover? Similary for New Zeeland? Sure, if they just say DRM in general, it basically ends up to cover anything someone decides to call DRM, it adds new rights in effect. However, I would guess there is SOME definition of it. The US DMCA for example seems to list what type of actions the protection should be fore and it is basically the exact same ones as is listed as being exclusive to the copyright holder (with exceptions of course) PLUS access. Thus in effect making access a new right for the copyright holder if they add some sort of DRM to controll access.
In Sweden, when we implemented the EU directive, it was made sure that only protection that was relevant from a copyright perspective, that is, prevented actions the copyright holder had control over, basically copying and making it available to the public was covered. DRM that regulated other things, such as region coding was NOT covered and circumvention is thus not forbidded. Accessing a work is similary not a right of the copyright holder, hence protection that deals with accessing a work (for example to look, read and otherwise use) is not covered and can be circumvented. In addition, protection that combine covered and not covered types of protection is not covered either to prevent a loophole.
Which are only limitations on the exclusivness of specific rights. The law still tells about the ri ghts the copyright holders got and leave everything else for anyone to do. It doesn't list the "rights" of non copyright holders. Thus when you said that copyright law doesn't list what rights users has is in fact right, copyright law, as I replied, are not listing rights users has and then if something is not listed (everything else), it is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, it is the other way arround.
Your example above is not any different, it is only a limitation of the exclusive right given to the copyright holder, not list of rights the user has.
>Another nice example is fair-use.
No, fair-use is not rights given to the users, it is listing conditions were the exclusivenss given to copyright holders doesn't apply. That is, it tells when something you do would otherwise have been a copyrigth infringement is not. It is again a limitations on the exclusiveness of the rights given to the copyright holder. Just because something doesn't fulfill the requirements of the fair use tests (which exists in various forms in many countries) doesn't mean it is a copyright infringement and you can't do it. The action must to start with have been one that was given as a right to the copyright holder.
The point I try to make is that copyright law tells in various ways what rights the copyright holder has, everything else is free for anyone. If you can't find about something in the copyright law, it is by default OK and not infringing. Not the other way arround.
>In the EU, and for example in Canada, copyright grants certain rights >to users either directly or indirectly that allow for making private >copies of copyrighted works on media for which a levy has been payed.
They are limitations of the rights of the copyright holder. They are not completel lists of rights the users has. On the other hand, the copyright law gives complete listing of the rights of the copyright holder, anything else is free to do by anyone.
You may argue it is a "right" of the users but the reason is that it is not copyright infrinement because it is NOT given as a right to the copyright holder. And the danger of looking at it as if the copyright law doesn't say specifically a user can do something, it is infringement is wrong, becase that is not how copyright law is written and constructed, which was my point.
>One can have a long argument over if those things are exceptions to >exclusive rights or rights granted to others then the copyright holder, >but effectively that is the same thing in this case.
Agreed, we should not end up discussing the semantics or meaning of the worlds, but what I feel is important as I mentioned above is to note that the copyright law completely lists what the COPYRIGHT HOLDER has when it comes to rights. It is a complete list of their rights (sometimes expressed as exceptions or rights of the users to restrict). If not listed, the copyright hodler doesn't have control or exclusivness in it. It does however not have any completel lists of what "rights" users have or what users can do. It is the other way arround, if not listed as a right of the copyright holder, then a user can do it. Hence why I objected to your statement that "but not to the rights that users have.".
>Copyright law is supposedly 'harmonized' among those who signed >the Berne convention, but to me it seems that only aplies to things >like how long it lasts and the automatic aspect of it, but not to >the rights that users have.
Copyright tends to work not by telling what "users" can do, but rather what they can't do (by giving those things as exclusive to the copyright holder). Everything else is not covered or regulated by copyright law. So basically, if copyright law doesn't say something is only allowed to be done by the copyright holder, you can do it. Copyright law tend to give only a specific small set of rights (things to do) to the copyright holder. The main ones being copying and various forms of making the work available to the public. That is it. Further, there are usually exceptions to the exclusivenss so that others can do it anyway without permission.
So the problem comes up of the country's copyright law doesn't give any exceptions at all for copying needed to actually use something you allready lawfully aquired either by specifically allowing it for coputer programs or having general exceptions like for personal use or for temporary copies like the ones done by the computer when you use software. In such countries you might get a problem.
>If you continue to use the software, you are committing (you guessed it) copyright violation.
In many countries this is not true. It would not be a copyright violation since you would not need a separate lience to run software you have legaly aquired, the law allready gives that permission.
>I believe Blizzard is arguing (like many software companies) that you never ever >become owner of a copy of the software, rather, you buy a license to use. The copy >in their idea never becomes your property.
Since many other countries doesn't have that requirement of ownership, how would that affect the case? Must someone writing a program as the one in question specifically try to prevent and note that someone in the USA can't buy it (if he is living in the USA, otherwise it is of course not of interest). Can he sell (and make?) such a program at all living in USA? It woudl obviously (from that point of view) be a perfectly legal program in other countries were one doesn't need any license to use or load WoW into memory and so on.
>At least in the USA, it is not copyright infringement to copy software for the purpose of using it.
That holds true for many, if not most, countries in the world. It seems that in the US, it is slighly complicated by the use of the terminology "owner" in the text of the law, which is lacking in for example the EU directive regulating the issue, instead they tend to talk about "lawfull aquirer" which makes the whole "you don't buy it you license it" irrellevant. It doesn't matter who actually owns the specific copy in question.
Buying and ownership has nothing to do with use, they are not related. Ownership (of copies of a work) is not related to the use in itself. You can use something without owning it and you can use something and also own it. Some countries has copyrigth laws with varying requirement for USING a work although many if not most does not. Regardless of if you get a contract/license to use some work, you still need to get hold of a copy of the work to actually use though. Claiming that you just get a license to use a work would still raise the question how you would then get the actual copy to use your license with. Is it something you hire or loan? Is there some contract for that? If not, how do you come in posession of the copy? Of course in most countries in the world, you do in fact buy copies of software (and thus becomes the owner of those copies). There might be additional contractual issues with a purchase, but that doesn't change the ownership. YOu may also like to look at the sales law of your own country which would define and deal with sales and ownership changes. Just because someone claim it is not a sale when you enter a shop and pay money for a chair you bring with you doesn't mean it was in fact a sale and that you are the owner of the chair. Although appearantly in some countries, it is OK for the seller of the chair to later come and demand you agree to give the ownership of it back if you want to sit on it.
You get ownership of it when you buy it in a shop (or whatever other way you aquire it). Demanding that you should give the software back in a contract offer (that in many countries have no requirement for thw user to accept) in order to give you basically nothing back but prevent the use of your program if you do not accept the contract is really not something that is supported by contract law in many countries. You could argue the contract is part of the purchase, but then you end up conflicting with consumer sale and consumer contract term laws that similar void, not the contract but the term in many countries as well. So general statement that Microsoft owns the copy of the software you have doesn't work out many countries. Of course, in the countries it DOES work in, you may ask how it comes you are in a possession of something someone else owns. Is it a loan? Do you hire it? Some other way of possessing something someone else owns? WHat was the ownership status prior to the agreement acceptance. Who owns the copy before you install and so on? Feel free to tell the details about your country since it seems to be one of those were either forcing someone to give away something they own thorugh a contract offer (and in case you don't accept the contract, they are allowed to prevent you using what you own). Since you refer to the acceptance of a contract is what gives up the ownership, that seems to be the case in your country so the other possibilites would not apply. It would be nice to know how the laws on contracts demanding onwership transfer works in your country.
So, as long as the contract is available at some place, through some media, somewere in the world, with or without your knowledge, it is considered as "available"? I suppose every single shop in UK also has a bunch of computers for people to line up at before they shop to search for a possible "EULA" for each and everything they want to buy, no? Last I was in UK I did not see those computers but perhaps I did not look carefully enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it have been better to simply post a link to were you copied this forum post from?
t hreadID=2246&messageID=11919&start=-1
http://news.com.com/5208-1030_3-0.html?forumID=1&
Of course, it would not make it any more correct than it was back then.
I believe the Finnish law on this topic is very similar to the Swedish one in that private copying is allowed. However, it is still restricted to a few copies of each work so the initial posters "to all my friends" would have to be changed to "a few friends".
The only restriction for music (and film) is that you are not allowed to hire or get some other 3rd part to do the
copying for you. Like in Sweden, such copying of computer software is not at all allowed.
>The only thing they can do is watch P2P sites and the
>like to see if any tunes on those sites were purchased
>from iTunes and they can identify the user.
The user who once bought a ong, yes. What do that have to do with the song being on a P2P site or who put it there? Or are you claiming that only the one who bought the song from iTunes can ever put the song on a P2P site?
Or perhaps it was done in a country were one actually CAN make copies and give to a friend (for example) without it being copyright infringement.
Actually it was about making a copy and sending that copy to someone, not the storage. But otherwise, yeah, it had nothing to do with storing physical documents somewere.
Could it be that since anyone in theory could acess the account using the password/whatever and the server doesn't make sure it is the same person, just someone using the same account and so on, they feel it is "the public"? Seems strange indeed, especially if applied to other things, but perhaps that is part of their reasoning.
It was not the "storing online" that was illegal. It was the copying and sending the music to users that was. And in this case the one doing it was Image City who owned and managed the system. The user was, according to the court an unspecified party hence the infringement. If you own and manage your own service for your own files, it would seem to be no problem at allm at least not in Japan. Of course, if you allow others to download from your servers you would be guilty as well it would seem.
They would have to send it back to the user. It was not the user uploading music that was copyright infringement, it was when the service company sent a copy back that there occured copyright infringement. *If* the same could apply to software, of course Microsoft or anyone else could possibly commit copyright infringement. Of course, just because they would distribute something does not mean they have also agreed to the GPL (or any other contract). They can just be (possibly if in Japan and so on) infringing on copyright.
No, but if it was in Japan, and if someone had the copyright to the work in those documents, and the banks copied those documents and sent them to you again, THEN the bank might commit copyright infringment. At least it was so decided when it was music files and an online service.
You are confusing what the "selling" is about. It is not selling in the traditional sense of changing ownership. Blizzard can claim whatever ownership they want but that is not changed, they still own it afterwards if that is the way you want to view it. What is sold is the possession of the gold (in this case) within the game, something anyone playing the game is free to do as they see fit, there is even several features built into the game for changing possession of gold and items between players and characters.
Next you will probably say that someone owning a Monoply game can charge other players of it with charges of "selling something not belonging to them" if they exchange real money for a street when playing.... I doubt you will get far with that. Nothing would prevent the owner (or someone else for that matter to kick those people out of your game if such practise was not allowed by the rules, but that is something else of course.
The EU directive in question doesn't apply to computer software (an earlier directive does with quite different content). So, in Finland for example, the part about technical measures that protect a work and the circumvention of them does not apply to computer software, it is even specifically said so in the law. The same applies to other countries in EU. Of course, some countries might have added computer software as well to be covered even if the EU directive doesn't (although technically it would have been wrong to do so).
Of course, what you suggest can be illegal anyway for various other reasons, one being that the earlier EU directive basically mandated any copying at all for computer software to be infringement the only exception being if you are in lawfull possession of a copy in which case meaning it can't be one created in an infringing way. In those cases you are allowed to make such copies needed to use the software. It has nothing to do with the CD-key issue though.
Do note that the directive as written only covers protection of "rights" related to copyright, nothing else. That includes of course copying and making it available to the public, it does not cover access though (since accessing a work is not a right of the copyright holder). As an example of a not covered technical measure is one that handle region coding of the DVD. SUch protection is not covered by the directive.
As for the implementation of the directive, countries are allowed to go further, meaning that a country can add other "rights" that can be covered, some countries has, like the USA with its DCMA, added access as such a "right" that is covered by the protection, some has not. AN example of a country that has not is Sweden which discussed the issue quite a bit in the law proposal for example mentioning region coding specifically as an example of a protection not covered. It also said that technological measures that combine protection of covered rights and non coverd rights are also excluded since otherwise it would be a way for a right holder to get protection covered that would not otherwise be so. So basically in Sweden and other countries of the EU which has note expanded the directive, many of the technological meassures protecting media is not covered at all meaning it doesn't matter if they are effective or not or if you circumvent them or not.
Exactly how the Finnish law implemented the directive I don't know, they seem to have gone for extending it though since they have looked at the effectivness. The point is that it is not always easy to get the details by simply reading part (or even the whole) directive and it is even harder to judge individual countries' copyright laws based on it. So it is still impoirtan to know the wording of the Finnish law and how to apply it.
>As far as I am aware the legal situation is that Blizzard claim ownership of all the items/gold etc in WoW.
So? If they want to do that, fine, no one is changing that or claiming otherwise. The gold, after all, will not leave Blizzard and their servers, they are thus still owning and posessing them afterwards. Sure, the possession of it in the game has changed, but that is what the game is about in part, change of possession inside the game. The game has plenty of functionality to facilitate that even, trade windows, auction houses, built in mail system were you can send gold and items along and so on.
>pfft no they don't. i paid for a license to use windows,
Great for you, personally I actually bought a copy. Even though it doesn't mean I hold any copyrights to it, the laws of my country allows me to use the copy without the need of any license, contract or permission at all (regardless of if I would actually own it or not, so borrowing it would be quite OK too for example). Of course, just like with you, I have similary not given any permissions to MS.
Didn't Blizzard claim something similar in the bnetd case regarding not testing the cd-key "properly"?
So, how does the proposed new law in Canada define "DRM" and what types of DRM does it cover? Similary for New Zeeland? Sure, if they just say DRM in general, it basically ends up to cover anything someone decides to call DRM, it adds new rights in effect. However, I would guess there is SOME definition of it. The US DMCA for example seems to list what type of actions the protection should be fore and it is basically the exact same ones as is listed as being exclusive to the copyright holder (with exceptions of course) PLUS access. Thus in effect making access a new right for the copyright holder if they add some sort of DRM to controll access.
In Sweden, when we implemented the EU directive, it was made sure that only protection that was relevant from a copyright perspective, that is, prevented actions the copyright holder had control over, basically copying and making it available to the public was covered. DRM that regulated other things, such as region coding was NOT covered and circumvention is thus not forbidded. Accessing a work is similary not a right of the copyright holder, hence protection that deals with accessing a work (for example to look, read and otherwise use) is not covered and can be circumvented. In addition, protection that combine covered and not covered types of protection is not covered either to prevent a loophole.
>The specific rights we were discussing
I was not talking specifically or only about the USA copyright law, I was talking about copyright in general.
>are granted by http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117
>which is definitely part of copyright law in the USA.
Which are only limitations on the exclusivness of specific rights. The law still tells about the ri ghts the copyright holders got and leave everything else for anyone to do. It doesn't list the "rights" of non copyright holders. Thus when you said that copyright law doesn't list what rights users has is in fact right, copyright law, as I replied, are not listing rights users has and then if something is not listed (everything else), it is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, it is the other way arround.
Your example above is not any different, it is only a limitation of the exclusive right given to the copyright holder, not list of rights the user has.
>Another nice example is fair-use.
No, fair-use is not rights given to the users, it is listing conditions were the exclusivenss given to copyright holders doesn't apply. That is, it tells when something you do would otherwise have been a copyrigth infringement is not. It is again a limitations on the exclusiveness of the rights given to the copyright holder. Just because something doesn't fulfill the requirements of the fair use tests (which exists in various forms in many countries) doesn't mean it is a copyright infringement and you can't do it. The action must to start with have been one that was given as a right to the copyright holder.
The point I try to make is that copyright law tells in various ways what rights the copyright holder has, everything else is free for anyone. If you can't find about something in the copyright law, it is by default OK and not infringing. Not the other way arround.
>In the EU, and for example in Canada, copyright grants certain rights
>to users either directly or indirectly that allow for making private
>copies of copyrighted works on media for which a levy has been payed.
They are limitations of the rights of the copyright holder. They are not completel lists of rights the users has. On the other hand, the copyright law gives complete listing of the rights of the copyright holder, anything else is free to do by anyone.
You may argue it is a "right" of the users but the reason is that it is not copyright infrinement because it is NOT given as a right to the copyright holder. And the danger of looking at it as if the copyright law doesn't say specifically a user can do something, it is infringement is wrong, becase that is not how copyright law is written and constructed, which was my point.
>One can have a long argument over if those things are exceptions to
>exclusive rights or rights granted to others then the copyright holder,
>but effectively that is the same thing in this case.
Agreed, we should not end up discussing the semantics or meaning of the worlds, but what I feel is important as I mentioned above is to note that the copyright law completely lists what the COPYRIGHT HOLDER has when it comes to rights. It is a complete list of their rights (sometimes expressed as exceptions or rights of the users to restrict). If not listed, the copyright hodler doesn't have control or exclusivness in it. It does however not have any completel lists of what "rights" users have or what users can do. It is the other way arround, if not listed as a right of the copyright holder, then a user can do it. Hence why I objected to your statement that "but not to
the rights that users have.".
>Copyright law is supposedly 'harmonized' among those who signed
>the Berne convention, but to me it seems that only aplies to things
>like how long it lasts and the automatic aspect of it, but not to
>the rights that users have.
Copyright tends to work not by telling what "users" can do, but rather what they can't do (by giving those things as exclusive to the copyright holder). Everything else is not covered or regulated by copyright law. So basically, if copyright law doesn't say something is only allowed to be done by the copyright holder, you can do it. Copyright law tend to give only a specific small set of rights (things to do) to the copyright holder. The main ones being copying and various forms of making the work available to the public. That is it. Further, there are usually exceptions to the exclusivenss so that others can do it anyway without permission.
So the problem comes up of the country's copyright law doesn't give any exceptions at all for copying needed to actually use something you allready lawfully aquired either by specifically allowing it for coputer programs or having general exceptions like for personal use or for temporary copies like the ones done by the computer when you use software. In such countries you might get a problem.
>If you continue to use the software, you are committing (you guessed it) copyright violation.
In many countries this is not true. It would not be a copyright violation since you would not need a separate lience to run software you have legaly aquired, the law allready gives that permission.
>I believe Blizzard is arguing (like many software companies) that you never ever
>become owner of a copy of the software, rather, you buy a license to use. The copy
>in their idea never becomes your property.
Since many other countries doesn't have that requirement of ownership, how would that affect the case? Must someone writing a program as the one in question specifically try to prevent and note that someone in the USA can't buy it (if he is living in the USA, otherwise it is of course not of interest). Can he sell (and make?) such a program at all living in USA? It woudl obviously (from that point of view) be a perfectly legal program in other countries were one doesn't need any license to use or load WoW into memory and so on.
>At least in the USA, it is not copyright infringement to copy software for the purpose of using it.
That holds true for many, if not most, countries in the world. It seems that in the US, it is slighly complicated by the use of the terminology "owner" in the text of the law, which is lacking in for example the EU directive regulating the issue, instead they tend to talk about "lawfull aquirer" which makes the whole "you don't buy it you license it" irrellevant. It doesn't matter who actually owns the specific copy in question.
Buying and ownership has nothing to do with use, they are not related. Ownership (of copies of a work) is not related to the use in itself. You can use something without owning it and you can use something and also own it. Some countries has copyrigth laws with varying requirement for USING a work although many if not most does not. Regardless of if you get a contract/license to use some work, you still need to get hold of a copy of the work to actually use though. Claiming that you just get a license to use a work would still raise the question how you would then get the actual copy to use your license with. Is it something you hire or loan? Is there some contract for that? If not, how do you come in posession of the copy? Of course in most countries in the world, you do in fact buy copies of software (and thus becomes the owner of those copies). There might be additional contractual issues with a purchase, but that doesn't change the ownership. YOu may also like to look at the sales law of your own country which would define and deal with sales and ownership changes. Just because someone claim it is not a sale when you enter a shop and pay money for a chair you bring with you doesn't mean it was in fact a sale and that you are the owner of the chair. Although appearantly in some countries, it is OK for the seller of the chair to later come and demand you agree to give the ownership of it back if you want to sit on it.
You get ownership of it when you buy it in a shop (or whatever other way you aquire it). Demanding that you should give the software back in a contract offer (that in many countries have no requirement for thw user to accept) in order to give you basically nothing back but prevent the use of your program if you do not accept the contract is really not something that is supported by contract law in many countries. You could argue the contract is part of the purchase, but then you end up conflicting with consumer sale and consumer contract term laws that similar void, not the contract but the term in many countries as well. So general statement that Microsoft owns the copy of the software you have doesn't work out many countries. Of course, in the countries it DOES work in, you may ask how it comes you are in a possession of something someone else owns. Is it a loan? Do you hire it? Some other way of possessing something someone else owns? WHat was the ownership status prior to the agreement acceptance. Who owns the copy before you install and so on? Feel free to tell the details about your country since it seems to be one of those were either forcing someone to give away something they own thorugh a contract offer (and in case you don't accept the contract, they are allowed to prevent you using what you own). Since you refer to the acceptance of a contract is what gives up the ownership, that seems to be the case in your country so the other possibilites would not apply. It would be nice to know how the laws on contracts demanding onwership transfer works in your country.
>MS owns the software, you do not.
No, they hold the copyright to it, that has nothing to do with ownership.
So, as long as the contract is available at some place, through some media, somewere in the world, with or without your knowledge, it is considered as "available"? I suppose every single shop in UK also has a bunch of computers for people to line up at before they shop to search for a possible "EULA" for each and everything they want to buy, no? Last I was in UK I did not see those computers but perhaps I did not look carefully enough.