Putting a disclaimer on the box is all that's really needed. I agree with you that some protection is needed. But all you really need is two lines or so. Do not distribute and we are not responsible for damage. That's it.
Oh and one thing I forgot:)
This would also make the GPL officially invalid I think. However, because the GPL is a positive-rights license and not a negative one, most people will treat it as more of an agreement than a license. If you don't accept the license, your rights revert to those ones given basically under the law.
Agreements can be made without a signature, if they are commonly implied. Handshake deals, while legally shaky, are accepted from time to time. An EULA is similar. So an EULA may be legally binding.
However, from how I see things, the contract being made when you purchase software is a standard sales agreement. Both parties have certain rights and responsiblities. Copyright and Fair Use are examples of these. In this case, what the software companies are doing is REWRITING that contract unilaterally. I can't write up a contract with a person, then a week later just rewrite the terms, it doesn't work that way. Once it leaves the store, any additional terms are null and void. Instead of using EULAs, companies should have representitives at every store with a stack of contracts for consumers to sign when they purchase software. If the expense is too high, maybe they should just not put in an EULA, and maybe just put a small disclaimer on the box. ("This software is not to be distributed, we are not responsible for any damage to your system this may cause". is really all a software company needs for an agreement)
The actual service of editing films, in an on-demand basis, would be untouchable I think. There is a huge problem with what they are doing.
They are activly marketing specific edited films for profit. That means that they are not providing a service, they are in more of a merchant context. This is very important. It moves from being a fair use issue, to being a profiteering issue.
And I'll say it again..from what I read about this company, I don't think they license the movies properly to begin with...
For the actual transfer of files, there's no profiteering going on.
As far as I'm concerned, IP copyright gives an exclusive right to profit from a work, to prevent marketplace confusion. Where there's no profiting, there's no foul.
This is not "self-censorship". This is about a company changing the content of a work then profiting from it. Renting is a grey-market activity as it is.
Speaking of that, who wants to bet that these moves are NOT properly licensed for rental to begin with?
That said, I would not have a problem with a service that involved people taking in their own copies of the movie they purchased and getting them edited for a small fee. That would be fine. It's the rental part I don't like.
The problem is...would a Libertarian government repeal the DMCA? Maybe....but then again maybe not. I don't see very much in the DMCA that would go against the Libertarian (big L) ideology. Most Libertarians I've talked to support IP. I believe that most of the big Lib. groups have thrown support behind IP (Cato institute for example).
Copy Protection can be seen as a complex form of IP. Thereby breaking the copy protection can be seen as a violation of IP, thereby a violation of property which makes the bad parts of the DMCA just fine.
Want to protect our online rights? So do I! That doesn't mean going for knee-jerk reactions that in the long run are going to result in the SAME problems we have now. Like it or not an unregulated society will result in our freedoms being trampled by the corps...just the same as is happening now.
What can we do? Like it or not we have to convince Joe-Sixpack that this is a very important cause. Unfortunantly I don't think WE can do it. The only people that can do it will be groups like the RIAA who eventually cross the line.
To paraphrase a line from the Baen website. People are honest. They will pay money for things they enjoy. However, if they feel that those they would be paying money to are gouging them, the people feel no remorse, shame or guilt in doing them harm.
In other words, who gets upset when a conman gets conned?
The TV/Betamax case revolved around the possiblity of illegal use of a product. The judgment was while the major use may very well be illegal, as long as there is a legal use for the product, it's not illegal.
Napster?
I used Napster exclusivly for live performances of bands that allowed the recording and trading of such material. A legal use, therefore Napster was a legal service.
That's what I want to know. I've been making the argument for over 2 years that if the software/music/movie community wants to stop "piracy" they should start with actual bootlegging. Completely. No playing favorites to those with the money (read Blockbuster), but any reselling/renting is in a moral sense worse than P2P (making money off of somebody elses work!).
Of course, this violates so many principles of fair use it's not funny, so it's not a realistic proposal. Yet in the same "moral" sense that P2P is wrong, so is the used purchase/rental of media. The original producer is not getting a cut of the particular transaction either way.
It becomes clear that the current copyright tomfoolery is not even based on any sort of "moral" grounds, but is instead based on purely business and monopolistic grounds. If the cartels tried to go after the non-Blockbuster rental shops and the pawn shops FIRST, they'd at least have some sort of "moral" base to stand on.
The "theft" in their eyes is going to happen when indie media starts becoming bigger than them. That's their real reasons for all this insanity.
In reality, all these things are cut from the same cloth. More than anything, it's a moral problem. People d/l'ing hundreds of songs to sell CDs to their friends is obviously immoral, but is it really any more immoral than the actions/words of any number of corporate CEO's/industry shrills? It's all in the same. A few things these people have to realize.
#1. P2P trading is legitimate. People do illegal things over it, it's true, but people also do legal things over it. Like the VCR, it's hard to stop because of this.
#2.The goal of the industry conglomerates isn't to stop piracy, it's to stop competition. It's a completely different matter. If they control the DRM, they control the digital material. Period. You either have to play ball with them or go home.
Not like it matters anyway. The cat is ALMOST of the bag. It's crying and just waiting to be let out. It's just a matter of time before the RIAA is obsolete.
Actually it's because none of the commercial services can compete with the quality and selection that P2P provides.
When the commercial services provide the same selection of live, unreleased and unavailable music as P2P services do, then we'll talk. Not to mention the ability to look into what other listeners with similar tastes are getting. Then we'll talk.
And oh..yea btw..it's not BS..there's a whole lot of us that use P2P to try out music before we buy it. Being an educated consumer is not a bad thing.
It's the threat..and it's a pretty big one..that the next Beatles, Rolling Stones, U2 or Nirvana are going to come...and they're going to miss the boat.
It only takes one to do it. A group that basically sticks to the indie roots, and grows through file-sharing and eventually gets enough clout to play with the big boys. It can happen, and it only takes one to be a killing blow to the RIAA.
When one do it..more are going to do it. And eventually the RIAA are out of business (at least in their current form).
I used to agree with you. That was the point of the post. Now, they have been found guilty of behaving in a criminal behaviour, and show no remorse or any willingness to actually fix the problem. They're acting like spoiled little brats.
OSS zealot? Please. Up until now I was fine with just eliminating marketplace restrictions. I thought the technology would eventually be able to speak for itself. However, I highly doubt that MS is going to follow *any* injunction placed against it. Therefore, something drastic needs to be done.
As for the two counter-examples listed...to be honest, I don't care about the monopoly aspect, as long as the companies don't abuse that monopoly. For example..say if GM tried to forbid the selling of used cars at lawyerpoint. Most certainly, something should be done. (More than likely involving making them pay all the lawyer fees, more than likely passing a law putting that fair use in stone).
The second example is obviously wrong..an obvious strawman, (I happen to think that the RIAA are the biggest culprits of that, but I digress) but the one thing you're forgetting is that with MS we're dealing with a criminal organization with no willingness to stop being criminal. The point of the post was just my disgust that that point alone. I really don't think that releasing the source would be good for the consumer. (To be frank, most people just don't update their OS, and releasing the source would reveil a whole list of security issues) But something has to be done to stop these people. They'll do whatever it takes to keep down the competition. If what it takes to stop them from doing that is destroying them, maybe that should be done.
I was once in favour of some sort of moderate compromise. Allowing OEMs more leeway with what they can do with th OS and eliminating anti-competitive activies from MS at a sales level. (The "MS-tax", punishing alternative OS, etc.)
After reading that, maybe we need to disband Microsoft, take the source code and OSS it. Not so much from a consumer standpoint, but if this the official MS line, then maybe MS shouldn't exist.
Bravo! If I had any mod points I'd mod this up:)
Most people would for sure oppose those trying to actually make money of the backs of specific other artists. Pretty much any way you look at it, it's wrong. (Of course that's what the RIAA does, but I digress).
There already is a lot of enforcement in place in regards to bootleg software, movies, and music. It is a crime (it comes under fraud). There really doesn't need to be any additional laws or enforcement.
Errr...no
N'Sync is a crappy boyband singing throw-away songs which make absolutly no sense or emotional connection.
Linkin Park/Incubus (never really heard SoaD), are playing experimental music while wearing their hearts on their sleeves.
Not a big LP fan (I do like Incubus 'tho), but I hate this analogy.
One of the spyware programs Kazaa installs is called "CommonName"
This "plug-in" actually forwards yahoo webserchs, and browsing on certain common sites through the commonname.com website. They don't even try to hide it.
I think that's spying enough..don't you think?
CD sales increasing in the UK rising seems odd...however I remember that over the last few months there have been a lot of break-out bands over there. The Strokes, The White Stripes, Starsailor etc.
That would explain a lot of that.
People are NOT going to buy a piece of console vapourware. Even the perception is enough to kill a system. The X-Box got off to a fast start when it looked like it would be a contender..but now...it hasn't had a really big game release since the launch.
Forget X-Box V2.if V1 doesn't work, NOBODY is going to buy V2, regardless of how technilogically superior it is. It's the same thing that killed the Dreamcast (unfortunantly..what a great system).
(In my mind the GC is just turning the corner..it has tons of big names just around the bend..sales of the GC should go up.)
It's not *JUST* music, or software, or movies or anything else for that matter. What you're seeing is the results of society wide elimination of any sort of honor system.
Take a peek at this (cnn). A lack of honor is running through our whole society. Unfortunantly, most people just don't (or won't) recognize that. It's all related folks.
Kids cheat on tests and steal music and software.
The RIAA uses it's power to try and lock competitors out of the game.
A certain software company releases substandard software in order to maintain their marketshare and gain an advantage in unrelated fields.
Companies and stock brokerships lie and cheat to make a few bucks.
Politicians say anything and do anything in order to get elected.
You know..people complain about how our youth (and I'm one of them for the most part..) have a complete lack of morality when it comes to IP...the business and political (hell even the religious world) isn't exactly making such a good example of things.
What's especially galling in this case is the actions of the RIAA. They lie, cheat and steal in order to lock up the marketplace from true competition, and abuse the artists. All of a sudden they complain when kids are lying and stealing from them.
Bunch of hypocrites.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what I read...
Protects lawful consumers by prohibiting non-negotiable shrink-wrap licenses that limit their rights and expectations.
Doesn't mention digital works. My take on this is that certain parts of the bill would only refer to digital works, and other parts would not.
In any case, it would be a good first step.
The term "digital work" doesn't appear in the section regarding shrink-wrap licenses.
It's very likely this will be worded to cover all blind licenses.
Putting a disclaimer on the box is all that's really needed. I agree with you that some protection is needed. But all you really need is two lines or so. Do not distribute and we are not responsible for damage. That's it.
Anything else is just lawyer-happy fluff.
Oh and one thing I forgot:) This would also make the GPL officially invalid I think. However, because the GPL is a positive-rights license and not a negative one, most people will treat it as more of an agreement than a license. If you don't accept the license, your rights revert to those ones given basically under the law.
The truth to this is...
Nobody knows:)
IANAL, but here's my take on things.
Agreements can be made without a signature, if they are commonly implied. Handshake deals, while legally shaky, are accepted from time to time. An EULA is similar. So an EULA may be legally binding.
However, from how I see things, the contract being made when you purchase software is a standard sales agreement. Both parties have certain rights and responsiblities. Copyright and Fair Use are examples of these. In this case, what the software companies are doing is REWRITING that contract unilaterally. I can't write up a contract with a person, then a week later just rewrite the terms, it doesn't work that way. Once it leaves the store, any additional terms are null and void. Instead of using EULAs, companies should have representitives at every store with a stack of contracts for consumers to sign when they purchase software. If the expense is too high, maybe they should just not put in an EULA, and maybe just put a small disclaimer on the box. ("This software is not to be distributed, we are not responsible for any damage to your system this may cause". is really all a software company needs for an agreement)
It's the money changing hands, not the act itself that is the problem.
It's the rental part that's the problem.
The actual service of editing films, in an on-demand basis, would be untouchable I think. There is a huge problem with what they are doing.
They are activly marketing specific edited films for profit. That means that they are not providing a service, they are in more of a merchant context. This is very important. It moves from being a fair use issue, to being a profiteering issue.
And I'll say it again..from what I read about this company, I don't think they license the movies properly to begin with...
For the actual transfer of files, there's no profiteering going on. As far as I'm concerned, IP copyright gives an exclusive right to profit from a work, to prevent marketplace confusion. Where there's no profiting, there's no foul.
This is not "self-censorship". This is about a company changing the content of a work then profiting from it. Renting is a grey-market activity as it is.
Speaking of that, who wants to bet that these moves are NOT properly licensed for rental to begin with?
That said, I would not have a problem with a service that involved people taking in their own copies of the movie they purchased and getting them edited for a small fee. That would be fine. It's the rental part I don't like.
The problem is...would a Libertarian government repeal the DMCA? Maybe....but then again maybe not. I don't see very much in the DMCA that would go against the Libertarian (big L) ideology. Most Libertarians I've talked to support IP. I believe that most of the big Lib. groups have thrown support behind IP (Cato institute for example).
Copy Protection can be seen as a complex form of IP. Thereby breaking the copy protection can be seen as a violation of IP, thereby a violation of property which makes the bad parts of the DMCA just fine.
Want to protect our online rights? So do I! That doesn't mean going for knee-jerk reactions that in the long run are going to result in the SAME problems we have now. Like it or not an unregulated society will result in our freedoms being trampled by the corps...just the same as is happening now.
What can we do? Like it or not we have to convince Joe-Sixpack that this is a very important cause. Unfortunantly I don't think WE can do it. The only people that can do it will be groups like the RIAA who eventually cross the line.
To paraphrase a line from the Baen website. People are honest. They will pay money for things they enjoy. However, if they feel that those they would be paying money to are gouging them, the people feel no remorse, shame or guilt in doing them harm.
In other words, who gets upset when a conman gets conned?
Not a false comparison.
The TV/Betamax case revolved around the possiblity of illegal use of a product. The judgment was while the major use may very well be illegal, as long as there is a legal use for the product, it's not illegal.
Napster?
I used Napster exclusivly for live performances of bands that allowed the recording and trading of such material. A legal use, therefore Napster was a legal service.
That's what I want to know. I've been making the argument for over 2 years that if the software/music/movie community wants to stop "piracy" they should start with actual bootlegging. Completely. No playing favorites to those with the money (read Blockbuster), but any reselling/renting is in a moral sense worse than P2P (making money off of somebody elses work!).
Of course, this violates so many principles of fair use it's not funny, so it's not a realistic proposal. Yet in the same "moral" sense that P2P is wrong, so is the used purchase/rental of media. The original producer is not getting a cut of the particular transaction either way.
It becomes clear that the current copyright tomfoolery is not even based on any sort of "moral" grounds, but is instead based on purely business and monopolistic grounds. If the cartels tried to go after the non-Blockbuster rental shops and the pawn shops FIRST, they'd at least have some sort of "moral" base to stand on.
The "theft" in their eyes is going to happen when indie media starts becoming bigger than them. That's their real reasons for all this insanity.
In reality, all these things are cut from the same cloth. More than anything, it's a moral problem. People d/l'ing hundreds of songs to sell CDs to their friends is obviously immoral, but is it really any more immoral than the actions/words of any number of corporate CEO's/industry shrills? It's all in the same. A few things these people have to realize.
#1. P2P trading is legitimate. People do illegal things over it, it's true, but people also do legal things over it. Like the VCR, it's hard to stop because of this.
#2.The goal of the industry conglomerates isn't to stop piracy, it's to stop competition. It's a completely different matter. If they control the DRM, they control the digital material. Period. You either have to play ball with them or go home.
Not like it matters anyway. The cat is ALMOST of the bag. It's crying and just waiting to be let out. It's just a matter of time before the RIAA is obsolete.
Actually it's because none of the commercial services can compete with the quality and selection that P2P provides. When the commercial services provide the same selection of live, unreleased and unavailable music as P2P services do, then we'll talk. Not to mention the ability to look into what other listeners with similar tastes are getting. Then we'll talk. And oh..yea btw..it's not BS..there's a whole lot of us that use P2P to try out music before we buy it. Being an educated consumer is not a bad thing.
It's the threat..and it's a pretty big one..that the next Beatles, Rolling Stones, U2 or Nirvana are going to come...and they're going to miss the boat. It only takes one to do it. A group that basically sticks to the indie roots, and grows through file-sharing and eventually gets enough clout to play with the big boys. It can happen, and it only takes one to be a killing blow to the RIAA. When one do it..more are going to do it. And eventually the RIAA are out of business (at least in their current form).
I used to agree with you. That was the point of the post. Now, they have been found guilty of behaving in a criminal behaviour, and show no remorse or any willingness to actually fix the problem. They're acting like spoiled little brats.
OSS zealot? Please. Up until now I was fine with just eliminating marketplace restrictions. I thought the technology would eventually be able to speak for itself. However, I highly doubt that MS is going to follow *any* injunction placed against it. Therefore, something drastic needs to be done.
As for the two counter-examples listed...to be honest, I don't care about the monopoly aspect, as long as the companies don't abuse that monopoly. For example..say if GM tried to forbid the selling of used cars at lawyerpoint. Most certainly, something should be done. (More than likely involving making them pay all the lawyer fees, more than likely passing a law putting that fair use in stone).
The second example is obviously wrong..an obvious strawman, (I happen to think that the RIAA are the biggest culprits of that, but I digress) but the one thing you're forgetting is that with MS we're dealing with a criminal organization with no willingness to stop being criminal. The point of the post was just my disgust that that point alone. I really don't think that releasing the source would be good for the consumer. (To be frank, most people just don't update their OS, and releasing the source would reveil a whole list of security issues) But something has to be done to stop these people. They'll do whatever it takes to keep down the competition. If what it takes to stop them from doing that is destroying them, maybe that should be done.
I was once in favour of some sort of moderate compromise. Allowing OEMs more leeway with what they can do with th OS and eliminating anti-competitive activies from MS at a sales level. (The "MS-tax", punishing alternative OS, etc.) After reading that, maybe we need to disband Microsoft, take the source code and OSS it. Not so much from a consumer standpoint, but if this the official MS line, then maybe MS shouldn't exist.
Bravo! If I had any mod points I'd mod this up :)
Most people would for sure oppose those trying to actually make money of the backs of specific other artists. Pretty much any way you look at it, it's wrong. (Of course that's what the RIAA does, but I digress).
There already is a lot of enforcement in place in regards to bootleg software, movies, and music. It is a crime (it comes under fraud). There really doesn't need to be any additional laws or enforcement.
Errr...no N'Sync is a crappy boyband singing throw-away songs which make absolutly no sense or emotional connection. Linkin Park/Incubus (never really heard SoaD), are playing experimental music while wearing their hearts on their sleeves. Not a big LP fan (I do like Incubus 'tho), but I hate this analogy.
Enter Troll Mode... Dungeon Siege is _NEVER_ playable, regardless of FPS. Exit Troll Mode...
One of the spyware programs Kazaa installs is called "CommonName" This "plug-in" actually forwards yahoo webserchs, and browsing on certain common sites through the commonname.com website. They don't even try to hide it. I think that's spying enough..don't you think?
CD sales increasing in the UK rising seems odd...however I remember that over the last few months there have been a lot of break-out bands over there. The Strokes, The White Stripes, Starsailor etc. That would explain a lot of that.
People are NOT going to buy a piece of console vapourware. Even the perception is enough to kill a system. The X-Box got off to a fast start when it looked like it would be a contender..but now...it hasn't had a really big game release since the launch. Forget X-Box V2.if V1 doesn't work, NOBODY is going to buy V2, regardless of how technilogically superior it is. It's the same thing that killed the Dreamcast (unfortunantly..what a great system). (In my mind the GC is just turning the corner..it has tons of big names just around the bend..sales of the GC should go up.)
Am I the only person that read that Sony was bring Everquest to the PS2 with a *bong*?
It's not *JUST* music, or software, or movies or anything else for that matter. What you're seeing is the results of society wide elimination of any sort of honor system. Take a peek at this (cnn). A lack of honor is running through our whole society. Unfortunantly, most people just don't (or won't) recognize that. It's all related folks. Kids cheat on tests and steal music and software. The RIAA uses it's power to try and lock competitors out of the game. A certain software company releases substandard software in order to maintain their marketshare and gain an advantage in unrelated fields. Companies and stock brokerships lie and cheat to make a few bucks. Politicians say anything and do anything in order to get elected. You know..people complain about how our youth (and I'm one of them for the most part..) have a complete lack of morality when it comes to IP...the business and political (hell even the religious world) isn't exactly making such a good example of things. What's especially galling in this case is the actions of the RIAA. They lie, cheat and steal in order to lock up the marketplace from true competition, and abuse the artists. All of a sudden they complain when kids are lying and stealing from them. Bunch of hypocrites.