All those schemes to build in protection into the hardware seems to assume that only a few should be able to create and manipulate actual protected work since if everyone can do it, well, then anyone can of course work arround it.
That mean that I can't make a movie/film/song/music/book whatever myself and apply any copy protection to it. I do still get copyright on it of course but appearantly I can either not have the copy to be distributed or used by others at all or would have to have it in a form that is unprotected.
That mean only a few big companies will have the "benefit" of such a system, right? In what way does this in any way help "content creators"? As far as I see it it is just a way by some of the big content distributors to basically force everyone that is a true creator so that they have to go through them to get anything published or distributed.
I wonder when those big content distributors will realise that the new technology is actually making them obsolete to a greate extent since it is now much easier for the ACTUAL creators to distribute their work themselves. But they fight on in an attempt to make it mandatory to use them for distribution. Sad.
>Here in Sweden we are even allowed to share >material to a "small group".
And I think it is generally established that this "small group" is not just close friends and relatives but can for example include your class mates in school and thus it seems reasonable that it would also include work colleagues.
This still does not mean it is generally OK to have an internal mp3 server (for example) since this copying to "close friends" must be done by the one owning the original and thus one can not copy the copy nor have someone else copy your originals, but otherwise it is perfectly OK and legal to copy music and such to this small group of close friends.
>If I build upon GPL'd code (modify, enhance or >give cosmetic changes) and don't publish the the >resulting code under the GPL, or even make it >proprietary and sell a binary-only form, wouldn't >that be a violation of the GPL.
It would be a violation of the GPL if you have agreed to it. If you have not agreed to it, it would be a violation of the copyright laws.
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 1
>It seems to be established ground that user >agreements like EULA is legitimate in contractual >terms. The whole idea is that if you don't accept >the user agreement, you're supposde to return the >software back to the shop (ha).
And what law requires me to return something that I own if I don't want to agree to some contract someone proposes to me? It usually says in the EULA that I should return it if I don't agree, but since I don't agree, it doesn't matter what is said in it since it is not a contract I agreed to.
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 2, Informative
>The point is that you haven't bought the >software.
One enter the shop, pay money and get the software in return. Thus one own that copy of the software, just as one own the copy of a book one owns. Perhaps in your country the laws says that when you buy software you don't own it but in most countries there is no such exception for software. Thus when you buy the copy in the shop, you own that copy.
>You do not have the right to use someone elses >property.
And since you DID buy it in the shop, that copy of thwesoftware is now yours (just as a copy of a book is yours when you have bought it).
> If you are given the right to use someone elses >property under certain conditions, it is illegal >to use the property if you ignore those >conditions.
This is actually the reverse of what applies, since I have bought the copy of the program, what happens with EULAs and such that are proposed AFTER you have bought is that the ones that sold me a copy of the software is now trying to control how *I* use something *I* own, they can't do that, they have to make such agreements BEFORE they sell me something.
>This is true whether you're talking about MS >Office or GNU Office; the copyright owner, owns >the product.
He owns each copy of it until it is sold. Copyright does not mean you own each copy of it (if that was the case, you would not own a single book you have at home for example). Copyright does not grant you any ownership at all. It only grant you certain rights according to the copyright laws (or rather, prevent some rights from NON copyright holders). One such rigt is the right to copy the work and distribute/sell such copies. another such right is the right to perform it in public and such. In no way does copyright grant you automatical ownership of each copy produced.
Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 1
>The point is that you haven't bought the
>software.
One enter the shop, pay money and get the software in return. Thus one own that copy of the software, just as one own the copy of a book one owns. Perhaps in your country the laws says that when you buy software you don't own it but in most countries there is no such exception for software. Thus when you buy the copy in the shop, you own that copy.
>You do not have the right to use someone elses
>property.
And since you DID buy it in the shop, that copy of thwesoftware is now yours (just as a copy of a book is yours when you have bought it).
> If you are given the right to use someone elses
>property under certain conditions, it is illegal
>to use the property if you ignore those
>conditions.
This is actually the reverse of what applies, since I have bought the copy of the program, what happens with EULAs and such that are proposed AFTER you have bought is that the ones that sold me a copy of the software is now trying to control how *I* use something *I* own, they can't do that, they have to make such agreements BEFORE they sell me something.
>This is true whether you're talking about MS
>Office or GNU Office; the copyright owner, owns
>the product.
He owns each copy of it until it is sold. Copyright does not mean you own each copy of it (if that was the case, you would not own a single book you have at home for example). Copyright does not grant you any ownership at all. It only grant you certain rights according to the copyright laws (or rather, prevent some rights from NON copyright holders). One such rigt is the right to copy the work and distribute/sell such copies. another such right is the right to perform it in public and such. In no way does copyright grant you automatical ownership of each copy produced.
"When someone provides a link without my permission, which grants a user access to a part of my website without going first to my site's home page, the user may experience something different from what I intended when I established my website," Bruce Sunstein, an intellectual property law attorney, said.
So, what is next, will it be illegal to read the last chapter of a book first since it might change the experience of the reader in a way the writer did not intend?
Re:In places where Internet is still expensive
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 1
Considering that, according to past articles here, some ISPs are going to put some sort of charge on ammount of traffic, or at least if it exceeds some ammount, any such silent connection that downloads or uploads anything will potentially cost extra money that you may not even be aware of.
As far as I know you can't get copyright on data itself (at least not in my country). You can get copyright to a specific compilation of the data though and the way they are presented and such. But anyone can use the data itself.
If you mean something different than just numbers and such when you say data (that is if the data is actually some creative work, like music, text and such), then it is different.
You can't give away something that is not yours. Thus if I have copyrights to something, you can't give it away, not even by signing a contract with someone else. So no, they would not get any rights to anything in the case someone posted something they did not own.
Perhaps, I really have no idea how Kali works, but you can play (or at least could) SC on it. I think Diablo was playable on it too, at least the add-on Hellfire was although it did not officially had multiplayer support. On the other hand diablo had no cd-keys to start with.
For years now, Blizzard has always argued that battle.net is not at all part of the games you buy (lets not argue if it is or not that is not the point) but actually a "free" (usually people argue about what free here means) service that they provide and thus not part of their games.
Now, suddenly they claim that they have put the copy protection mechanisms, not in their games but in this "not part of the game but free service". Seems strange to have a copy protection not being part of what it is supposed to protect.
Just an interesting observation.
Which is not completely true. If I am not completely mistaken, you can for example play Starcraft over Kali which doesn't check for cd-keys either. You can also play their games in other multiplayer ways that does not check for the cd-key. Most (all?) their games have other multiplayer options than bnet.
I think a dutch court a few years ago actually tested shrink wrap licenses. They ruled it was not binding or enforcable. That would apply to the Nederlands only of course but is a hint I would say how other European courts could rule. It was only shrinkwrap license though.
I recall some, somewhat, similar case here in Sweden some time ago. It was about those console games (I think it was Nitendo but not sure) that had taken a shop court that basically bought and sold copies of games. That is, you could take your game and sell it to the shop which would then sell it for a bit higher price, usually quite a bit cheaper than a new game would cost. Sort of a second hand shop for such games. I don't recall exactly what the argumentation and such was. Like in Germany, you would really own your copy of a program, game or whatever and could thus resell it (just like a book or a music CD or whatever) and here they tried to claim that it was not just an item that was (re)sold by the shop, it was actually a whole story, world and so on that they (Notendo) had created and thus reselling it from that standpoint was not allowed.
The court rules that it was actually perfectly OK for the shop to continue its bussiness. They even ruled that it was not at all the game maker that created the story, it was the player while playing the game. The game creater simply created the tools and such needed for it.
Anyway, the end of the story was that Nitendo could not do anything to stop the shop from buying and selling used copies of games.
The story I read was from ordinary newspapers and in my experience they can get confused and mess up such stories but it was along those lines.
Re:EULA acceptance = no Microsoft liability
on
EU May Fine Microsoft
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Which is why most countries (or at least some) has laws that tell what a seller is allowed to make agreements on with the customer. Usually not allowing for example such things as "not having any liability" or "not guaranteeing a product works" or "not having any responsability for what it does". Such agreements or parts of agreements would be void. Thus it would not matter if you agree to them, sign papers or whatever since the alw forbids such agreements. Perhaps it IS allowed in some countries, I really don't know, but not in all for sure.
At least according to swedish copyright laws, compilations and collection of data will indeed get copyright. Even though the data itself (of course) will not be copyrighted, the actual compilation or database or whatever it will be, will be protected. Thus anyone is of course free to use the data or information in it, but not the actual work, like the phonebook itself (that si, anyone can use the names and phone numbers and do whatever they like, but can't reproduce the phone book in whole or in part for example.
It is worth noticing that at least here in Sweden, laws itself, and most other such created by the goverment is never copyrighted. Thus anyone can reproduce and compile for example the laws. They will get copyright on that compilation, but of course not of the laws themselves. Just an example.
>Furthermore, copyright laws were written in such
>a way that whoever copyrights the
>work in question first wins regardless of whether
>they created it first or not (pending convincing
>evidence to the contrary).
Actually that may vary quite a lot. In many countries you get the copyright automatically as soon as you create a work and you don't need to do anything to claim it. Thus the "who copyrights it first" is the same as "who created it first".
Also note that the "copy" in copyright is not even part of many countries laws. They would there be called something along "the right of the authors". It is basically approaching the whole issue from another point not focusin directly on the copying (hence not calling it COPYright) but the rights of the author. The end result is basically the same though as the rights of the autor includes the reproduction and such.
Slashdot Mirror
All those schemes to build in protection into the hardware seems to assume that only a few should be able to create and manipulate actual protected work since if everyone can do it, well, then anyone can of course work arround it.
That mean that I can't make a movie/film/song/music/book whatever myself and apply any copy protection to it. I do still get copyright on it of course but appearantly I can either not have the copy to be distributed or used by others at all or would have to have it in a form that is unprotected.
That mean only a few big companies will have the "benefit" of such a system, right? In what way does this in any way help "content creators"? As far as I see it it is just a way by some of the big content distributors to basically force everyone that is a true creator so that they have to go through them to get anything published or distributed.
I wonder when those big content distributors will realise that the new technology is actually making them obsolete to a greate extent since it is now much easier for the ACTUAL creators to distribute their work themselves. But they fight on in an attempt to make it mandatory to use them for distribution. Sad.
>Here in Sweden we are even allowed to share
>material to a "small group".
And I think it is generally established that this "small group" is not just close friends and relatives but can for example include your class mates in school and thus it seems reasonable that it would also include work colleagues.
This still does not mean it is generally OK to have an internal mp3 server (for example) since this copying to "close friends" must be done by the one owning the original and thus one can not copy the copy nor have someone else copy your originals, but otherwise it is perfectly OK and legal to copy music and such to this small group of close friends.
>If I build upon GPL'd code (modify, enhance or
>give cosmetic changes) and don't publish the the
>resulting code under the GPL, or even make it
>proprietary and sell a binary-only form, wouldn't
>that be a violation of the GPL.
It would be a violation of the GPL if you have agreed to it. If you have not agreed to it, it would be a violation of the copyright laws.
>It seems to be established ground that user
>agreements like EULA is legitimate in contractual
>terms. The whole idea is that if you don't accept
>the user agreement, you're supposde to return the
>software back to the shop (ha).
And what law requires me to return something that I own if I don't want to agree to some contract someone proposes to me? It usually says in the EULA that I should return it if I don't agree, but since I don't agree, it doesn't matter what is said in it since it is not a contract I agreed to.
>The point is that you haven't bought the
>software.
One enter the shop, pay money and get the software in return. Thus one own that copy of the software, just as one own the copy of a book one owns. Perhaps in your country the laws says that when you buy software you don't own it but in most countries there is no such exception for software. Thus when you buy the copy in the shop, you own that copy.
>You do not have the right to use someone elses
>property.
And since you DID buy it in the shop, that copy of thwesoftware is now yours (just as a copy of a book is yours when you have bought it).
> If you are given the right to use someone elses
>property under certain conditions, it is illegal
>to use the property if you ignore those
>conditions.
This is actually the reverse of what applies, since I have bought the copy of the program, what happens with EULAs and such that are proposed AFTER you have bought is that the ones that sold me a copy of the software is now trying to control how *I* use something *I* own, they can't do that, they have to make such agreements BEFORE they sell me something.
>This is true whether you're talking about MS
>Office or GNU Office; the copyright owner, owns
>the product.
He owns each copy of it until it is sold. Copyright does not mean you own each copy of it (if that was the case, you would not own a single book you have at home for example). Copyright does not grant you any ownership at all. It only grant you certain rights according to the copyright laws (or rather, prevent some rights from NON copyright holders). One such rigt is the right to copy the work and distribute/sell such copies. another such right is the right to perform it in public and such. In no way does copyright grant you automatical ownership of each copy produced.
>The point is that you haven't bought the >software. One enter the shop, pay money and get the software in return. Thus one own that copy of the software, just as one own the copy of a book one owns. Perhaps in your country the laws says that when you buy software you don't own it but in most countries there is no such exception for software. Thus when you buy the copy in the shop, you own that copy. >You do not have the right to use someone elses >property. And since you DID buy it in the shop, that copy of thwesoftware is now yours (just as a copy of a book is yours when you have bought it). > If you are given the right to use someone elses >property under certain conditions, it is illegal >to use the property if you ignore those >conditions. This is actually the reverse of what applies, since I have bought the copy of the program, what happens with EULAs and such that are proposed AFTER you have bought is that the ones that sold me a copy of the software is now trying to control how *I* use something *I* own, they can't do that, they have to make such agreements BEFORE they sell me something. >This is true whether you're talking about MS >Office or GNU Office; the copyright owner, owns >the product. He owns each copy of it until it is sold. Copyright does not mean you own each copy of it (if that was the case, you would not own a single book you have at home for example). Copyright does not grant you any ownership at all. It only grant you certain rights according to the copyright laws (or rather, prevent some rights from NON copyright holders). One such rigt is the right to copy the work and distribute/sell such copies. another such right is the right to perform it in public and such. In no way does copyright grant you automatical ownership of each copy produced.
From the article:
"When someone provides a link without my permission, which grants a user access to a part of my website without going first to my site's home page, the user may experience something different from what I intended when I established my website," Bruce Sunstein, an intellectual property law attorney, said.
So, what is next, will it be illegal to read the last chapter of a book first since it might change the experience of the reader in a way the writer did not intend?
Considering that, according to past articles here, some ISPs are going to put some sort of charge on ammount of traffic, or at least if it exceeds some ammount, any such silent connection that downloads or uploads anything will potentially cost extra money that you may not even be aware of.
As far as I know you can't get copyright on data itself (at least not in my country). You can get copyright to a specific compilation of the data though and the way they are presented and such. But anyone can use the data itself. If you mean something different than just numbers and such when you say data (that is if the data is actually some creative work, like music, text and such), then it is different.
You can't give away something that is not yours. Thus if I have copyrights to something, you can't give it away, not even by signing a contract with someone else. So no, they would not get any rights to anything in the case someone posted something they did not own.
Perhaps, I really have no idea how Kali works, but you can play (or at least could) SC on it. I think Diablo was playable on it too, at least the add-on Hellfire was although it did not officially had multiplayer support. On the other hand diablo had no cd-keys to start with.
For years now, Blizzard has always argued that battle.net is not at all part of the games you buy (lets not argue if it is or not that is not the point) but actually a "free" (usually people argue about what free here means) service that they provide and thus not part of their games. Now, suddenly they claim that they have put the copy protection mechanisms, not in their games but in this "not part of the game but free service". Seems strange to have a copy protection not being part of what it is supposed to protect. Just an interesting observation.
Which is not completely true. If I am not completely mistaken, you can for example play Starcraft over Kali which doesn't check for cd-keys either. You can also play their games in other multiplayer ways that does not check for the cd-key. Most (all?) their games have other multiplayer options than bnet.
I think a dutch court a few years ago actually tested shrink wrap licenses. They ruled it was not binding or enforcable. That would apply to the Nederlands only of course but is a hint I would say how other European courts could rule. It was only shrinkwrap license though.
I recall some, somewhat, similar case here in Sweden some time ago. It was about those console games (I think it was Nitendo but not sure) that had taken a shop court that basically bought and sold copies of games. That is, you could take your game and sell it to the shop which would then sell it for a bit higher price, usually quite a bit cheaper than a new game would cost. Sort of a second hand shop for such games. I don't recall exactly what the argumentation and such was. Like in Germany, you would really own your copy of a program, game or whatever and could thus resell it (just like a book or a music CD or whatever) and here they tried to claim that it was not just an item that was (re)sold by the shop, it was actually a whole story, world and so on that they (Notendo) had created and thus reselling it from that standpoint was not allowed.
The court rules that it was actually perfectly OK for the shop to continue its bussiness. They even ruled that it was not at all the game maker that created the story, it was the player while playing the game. The game creater simply created the tools and such needed for it.
Anyway, the end of the story was that Nitendo could not do anything to stop the shop from buying and selling used copies of games.
The story I read was from ordinary newspapers and in my experience they can get confused and mess up such stories but it was along those lines.
Which is why most countries (or at least some) has laws that tell what a seller is allowed to make agreements on with the customer. Usually not allowing for example such things as "not having any liability" or "not guaranteeing a product works" or "not having any responsability for what it does". Such agreements or parts of agreements would be void. Thus it would not matter if you agree to them, sign papers or whatever since the alw forbids such agreements. Perhaps it IS allowed in some countries, I really don't know, but not in all for sure.
Stop it???? Why on earth would they stop it? On the contrary, I would say they like such a thing. Then they don't have to do it themselves.
At least according to swedish copyright laws, compilations and collection of data will indeed get copyright. Even though the data itself (of course) will not be copyrighted, the actual compilation or database or whatever it will be, will be protected. Thus anyone is of course free to use the data or information in it, but not the actual work, like the phonebook itself (that si, anyone can use the names and phone numbers and do whatever they like, but can't reproduce the phone book in whole or in part for example. It is worth noticing that at least here in Sweden, laws itself, and most other such created by the goverment is never copyrighted. Thus anyone can reproduce and compile for example the laws. They will get copyright on that compilation, but of course not of the laws themselves. Just an example.
>Furthermore, copyright laws were written in such >a way that whoever copyrights the >work in question first wins regardless of whether >they created it first or not (pending convincing >evidence to the contrary). Actually that may vary quite a lot. In many countries you get the copyright automatically as soon as you create a work and you don't need to do anything to claim it. Thus the "who copyrights it first" is the same as "who created it first". Also note that the "copy" in copyright is not even part of many countries laws. They would there be called something along "the right of the authors". It is basically approaching the whole issue from another point not focusin directly on the copying (hence not calling it COPYright) but the rights of the author. The end result is basically the same though as the rights of the autor includes the reproduction and such.