The report estimates that all 50 states could collectively lose more than $45 billion in Internet sales tax revenue in 2006.
Hmm, states can lose money that they don't currently collect? Isn't this a bit like saying, "Microsoft could lose more than $10 billion in annual revenue in 2006 if the government switched to Linux"? [Note: No, not a gratuitous MS swipe - I don't think MS would be so obnoxious as to use this phrasing.]
How about, "All 50 states stand to gain more than $45 billion in revenue by imposing a new tax they are not currently in a position to impose"? Seems like a more accurate rendering of the situation, although still somewhat hyperbolic since all 50 states are not considering this proposal. Some states don't have sales tax, period.
And the problem is: what the U.S. invents in Copyright laws, it will swap over to the Europe and other countries. Do you support this?
Sorry I did not make it clearer. First, the U.S. did not invent copyright, England did, under Queen Anne. For much of the 19th Century, the U.S. did not even abide by the copyright laws of other countries, largely because we didn't have a vast amount of exportable cultural production to worry about, so we didn't bother respecting the copyright restrictions other country's placed on their cultural production.
All that has changed, of course. Culture (or, as it has largely become, entertainment) is now a big U.S. export. So we do respect the copyrights of other nations and we expect ours to be respected. Nevertheless, copyright term has almost always, historically, been longer in Europe than in the U.S. Europe arrived at the current term of life of the creator +70 years earlier than we did. (Sorry, I don't know the exact year, but you can find it I'm sure.) The media conglomerates (the majority of which are foreign owned, and all of which do substantial business outside of the U.S.) wanted U.S. copyright term to be brought in line ("harmonized") with Europe's. This, in fact, was their most persuasive argument before Congress when they were lobbying for Congress to pass the CTEA. And in the recent Supreme Court challenge to the CTEA, the Solicitor General (arguing for the government's position), emphasized harmonization as an important motivating factor for Congress to extend copyright.
So I don't really understand how you can be worried about Europe following the U.S.'s lead with regard to copyright. Unfortunately for U.S. citizens, our government seems bent on following Europe's lead, thanks to intense lobbying efforts of a media industry that can best be described as "multinational," but certainly not "American."
Michael
Re:Freenet makes loads of enemies.
on
Freenet 0.5 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is exactly where the big media/entertainment industry should get to. Either you forget freedom of speech or you forget copywright laws over there in the U.S.
If only Europe and the Far East would let us here in the U.S. If you read the Eldred v. Ashcroft transcript, you'll see that harmonization with European copyright term was an important part of the government's argument that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was perfectly legitimate.
And then, of course, there are the RIAA Big Five:
AOL Time Warner - U.S.
Bertlesmann - Germany
Vivendi - France
EMI - U.K.
Sony - Japan
You make some great points, but what if the documents were not blueprints for a nuclear reactor but photographic and documentary proof that a particular nuclear plant is an accident waiting to happen? Freenet could prove an invaluable conduit for getting something out to the press and public. "Deep Throat," if such a person really existed, managed to get information to Woodward & Bernstein, but did Karen Silkwood really get to share everything she knew? It is hardly unprecedented for reporters to come under an enormous amount of pressure to reveal their sources. What an easy out Freenet would provide:
Reporter: I don't know who stole the documents. I got an anonymous tip to check Freenet and there they were.
As for me, I just hope to be able to use it to swap MP3s someday.:-)
How ironic that you mention the Constitution, when Freenet's de facto purpose is to subvert the following:
I might almost agree with you, had Congress not already subverted it by turning copyright from a limited monopoly into an effectively unending one. So now it becomes a question of "which subversion of the Copyright Clause is better?" My vote goes to Freenet & P2P.
Thanks for the defense:-), but I can see why it was originally modded troll, though I really didn't intend it that way. I shoulda done been more careful with my wording, like asking "What about the First Amendment?"
I understand your analogy to bribery, though I don't entirely agree with it. I think the process is entirely too messy to square with that analogy. Politicians get contributions from competing interests all the time, and not every contribution results in a given vote one way or another on any given issue. MS might contribute a lot of money to a particular representative's campaign, and that representative might vote in a way that benefits MS in one instance, but vote in a way that does not benefit MS in another. Do you say that one vote was bought and the other not bought, or do you look at the way that representative votes and the reasons he articulates for why he votes the way he does, and draw your own conclusions? I think democracy works best when it's the voters who decide who is behaving ethically and who isn't.
Another post opined that what these contributions are really buying is not so much votes as access, and I agree. That gets to your point about the "voices of the... richest" drowing out everyone else, which is a huge problem. That's why I think campaign finance reform is imperative. I don't think placing limits on the amounts that can be donated violates the First Amendment any more than the restriction against yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre does. Unrestricted donations are just as much a threat to our system of government as that kind of speech is to people's immediate physical safety. But banning contributions outright is denying people (and organizations of like-minded people) their right to a vital form of political expression, IMO. And I don't think that is (or should be) allowed under the First Amendment.
When you contribute money to a politician's campaign fund, you are not giving money to the politician personally. The politician is obliged to spend the money on his campaign and not on a diamond bracelet for his wife or girlfriend-on-the-side.
If you were pulled over by a cop and offered the cop money to look the other way, you would be committing a crime. It's called bribery. If the cop took it, he would be committing a crime. If instead you offered on the spot to write a check to the Policeman's Benevolent Society, under those circumstances your offer would still be considered a bribe, but the cop could take your check and still write you a ticket without committing a crime. He probably wouldn't (or shouldn't) accept it -- it has the appearance of being unethical. It's probably against all the rules for him to accept it. He'd be letting you off easy by not arresting you for attempted bribery, but your contribution itself isn't illegal. Your payment to the cop personally is illegal.
I think that's a reasonable analogy to the propriety of campaign donations. Any direct under-the-table payment to a politician is illegal. Campaign contributions are not, though they can certainly have the effect of making the politician whose campaign gets them appear unethical under the right circumstances. I question Berman's ethics when I see that his campaign has benefited so handsomely from Disney's largess, and were I in his district, I wouldn't vote for him. Unfortunately, most people don't pay much attention... in the U.S., too many people don't even bother to vote, and too many more who do are woefully uninformed about whom they're voting for. I think that is a much bigger problem than campaign contributions by corporations or PACs or unions or private individuals. We get the government we deserve. Most of the checks and balances are in place, but they're largely ignored by the one group of people who have the final say as to who gets elected (and no, I don't mean the Supreme Court ).
Are you saying that you did not know that Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton before you read it on OpenSecrets? Are you saying that you've never bothered to read a newspaper?
I don't doubt that this kind of still happens to a limited degree, but I think the degree is very limited and has been for quite sometime. It simply isn't worth the risk of getting caught, and members of Congress know how easy it is to get caught accepting a gift like an expensive notebook or a car. I know an editor who persuaded the publishing company he works for to send complimentary copies of a newly published book to every senator. (The subject of the book pertained to legislation pending in Congress.) Almost all the books were returned with gracious letters thanking the editor for his interest, but explaining that the publisher's price for the book exceeded the amount Congresspeople are allowed to accept as gifts. Many expressed support for the position taken by the book's author (which was well-known and obvious from the book's title), some said they were interested in the author's arguments and would purchase a copy (probably a tax write-off anyway!), most had no comments one way or the other.
There are plenty of perfectly legitimate ways for Congresspeople to get perks without accepting under-the-table gifts.
Yeah, MS was the only one under "Computers/Internet," but AOL Time Warner is on there under "TV/Movies/Music." AT&T, Bellsouth, Verizon...they're also internet providers, and all four of those companies gave more than MS did.
Exactly. I can understand why OpenSecrets felt a need to classify these companies the way it did, but their classifcations are already a bit behind the times. Would AOL have fallen under "Computer/Internet" before the merger with Time Warner? And even if they hadn't merged, categorizing the company former known as Time Warner under "TV/Movies/Music" ignores the fact that it was also an ISP.
Increasingly, all of these companies, from Microsoft to SBC, are in the communications business, whether they produce content or just serve as a conduit for the communications of others.
What the article mentions but never brings together is the ability of the player to win the game through peaceful(ie: not killing people) or criminal means.
It doesn't "bring together" that point because it's barely relevant. It's an interesting aside at most, which is how the article treats it.
It instead "brings together" the much more germaine point that there is a healthy market for games aimed at adults. It leaves the reader to draw his own conclusions about whether adults have a right to expect such games to be created and marketed, but rather pointedly implies that we do. It puts anyone who thinks this game should be taken off the market in the position of also thinking that only G-rated movies should be released and that all books published should be appropriate for children old enough to read. Certainly, there are people who feel this way, but the article doesn't let them disguise themselves. IMO, a good piece of writing.
Ideally, yes. But they probably don't want to undercut Pay-Per-View and on-demand movies on cable. On-demand has only just rolled out where I live, and I believe the price is $3.95 for a newer film, and $2.95 for older film. You get the film you purchase for 24 hours, you can stop/pause/start anytime. Don't know if you can rewind or fast forward.
...since you, the consumer get a shorter end of the stick.
Since when have the media conglomerates worried about giving consumers the short end of the stick?
They don't have to pay the store to store it or rent it to you.
They don't anyway. The stores pay them...stores buy videos and DVDs to rent to the store's customers. Ever notice how some videos cost $17.99-$19.99, while others cost $79.99-$89.99? The studios price the videos according to whether they think there will be much consumer demand to own. If they don't think there will be much demand, they jack-up the price because the video rental market will pay anyway. Often the promotional packaging for a screener will indicate "priced to sell" or "priced for rental," referring to which pricing platform that video will fall under.
Yeah, The Star is the best film Madonna has been in since Desperately Seeking Susan. Those films, good as they are (many of them anyway), are really just commercials -- artsy action-adventure commercials made by big-name directors and featuring interesting casts, but commercials nonetheless. Why would BMW want to restrict redistribution? It's free advertising. If you get one from me, they don't have to pay for the bandwidth.
Now, I can understand the desire to prevent people from watching the movie on-line so that they can go see it in the theater first. But why is that such a priority anymore? Seems like they still make money either way. In some respects, they could make even more money. There are movies I want to see. I'd be happy to watch them if I had the tape, but I'm not so interested in making it to a theater to watch them. I'm sure there are lots of people that feel that way.
I think they would lose a lot more that way than they might gain (and I'm sure that's what they think). The goal is too maximize the revenue potential of each distribution channel. The studios have always been convinced that most people won't go out to a movie if they can or have watched it at home. Most films make a big chunk of their box office take on opening weekend, and then attendance drops off. With the methods currently in place, they can always pick up the people (read: $$$) who didn't catch the film in the theatres with the rental/sale release, but they don't lose any of the people who do go to the theatres -- people who might just stay home and rent if they had that option. A lot of people rent or buy a movie they liked when they saw it in the theatre. So the studios make money both ways, but they make more by getting people out to the theatres first.
My guess on the Harry Potter download being restricted to the U.S. is that Warner Bros. is just nervous about the whole thing. They want to get their feet wet and see how it goes. I doubt they'd have picked that film if the second Potter film weren't opening soon...it probably comes with at least a trailer for the new flick. It's hard to imagine they are very worried about piracy... they know it has been all over the P2P networks for months already.
That's Australian dollars (the article is from an Australian news source.) I'm guessing you're in the U.S.? The charge in U.S. currency is $4.
As to your other points, I agree. I can imagine there being people for whom this deal would seem both reasonable and perhaps desireable. But I'm not one of them.
I've spent over $100 on CDs since January on CDs from non-RIAA labels,...
Out of curiosity, where did you find a list of RIAA affiliated labels? For the past 1.5 years, I've made every effort not to buy major-label CDs (I've done so twice, not counting used CDs, money from the sale of which doesn't go to the labels). Determining whether a so-called "indie" label is genuinely independent can be difficult enough. Sometimes they are wholly owned or majority-owned subsidiaries of a major label, sometimes they are independent with only a distribution agreement with one of the majors. The packaging can be confusing on this score. But even if the label is genuinely "indie," how do you know it isn't a member of RIAA and/or SoundExchange, which after all is just a trade organization? RIAA's website doesn't have a list of its member labels, that I can find.
Theoretically, you can impose any restrictions you want if you license to me usage of the toaster, but retain ownership rights. That doesn't have anything to do with copyright, but it does have to do with property rights. If the toaster is still your property, then you can restrict me from toasting English muffins in it, if you wish (and I agree). And if I do use it to toast English muffins, I violate my license, and you can take the toaster back without owing me a refund.
If you sell me the toaster, then no, you can't impose any restrictions. If you try to make me sign a sale contract that restricts my usage of the toaster, said contract wouldn't hold up in court. What right do you have to impose such restrictions? What precedent can you cite? Real estate owners often have rights to impose certain restrictions on property they sell to someone (no temporary structures, for example), and those rights are grounded in centuries of common law precedent. But not the owners of common household appliances. How could you enforce such restrictions? The law deals in practical matters; it's not interested in restrictions that are unenforceable (which, realistically, would probably invalidate your attempt to license your toaster to me with any restrictions).
This is the whole problem with copyright law now... it's becoming unenforceable. Well, ok, there are quite a few other problems with it too, but this is the reason for the unprecedented copyright crackdowns we're seeing. Instead of realizing its time has passed and trying to come up with new economic models, the powers that be are trying to strengthen it. Meanwhile, others are coming up with innovative ways to modify it, such as the GPL or the open audio license. None of this changes the fact that it is still around, for now. None of this changes the fact that EULAs and the GPL are manifestations of it. There is, really and for all practical purposes, no such thing as a binding EULA on the usage of a toaster. There is, really and for all practical purposes, such a thing as a binding EULA on the usage of copyrighted material. Why the difference? Because of copyright. Because copyright grants the creator of the material certain privileges that the owner of the toaster does not have. Why is it so hard for you to see the causal relationship between the existence (and enforceability) of EULAs and the existence of copyright law? Where do you think the authority to create EULAs comes from? Where does the authority to create (and enforce) the terms of the GPL come from? Property rights? Man, I hope not, because that's exactly what the media conglomerates want you to think. They want you to believe that copyright is the same as real property (hence the term "intellectual property"). Sure, there are certain similarities, but there are very important differences, which is why a book or a song or software is not treated the same as a toaster under the law. And that, at least, is as it should be.
Would you argue that a driver's license is the same thing as an EULA? Why not?
Hmmm....lemme guess. Maybe because the authority to grant and enforce EULAs and the GPL is grounded in copyright law, while the authority to grant and enforce drivers' licenses is not? Maybe because violating EULAs and the GPL might land you in civil court (unless you're really naughty), while driving without a license might land you in criminal court? Am I warm yet?
For the record, I don't think EULAs have much in common with fishing licenses either. Any license, on some level, has something in common with every other license, presuming it actually fits the definition of "license." But EULAs have more in common with the GPL than with any license granted by state or local authorities.
Then you would not be permitted to copy its patented heating mechanism in the toaster you were marketing, unless you paid the patent holder for the right to do so. How difficult is that to understand? A patent can't demand that a consumer pay more for a product he has purchased in order to use that product. And if the toaster played a copyrighted jingle, then the toaster manufacturer either wrote that jingle, or paid a licensing fee to the copyright holder in order to use it. So you're in the clear. Even if the toaster maker didn't license the right to use the jingle, you're still in the clear. It's the toaster maker who has a problem.
Calling either purchase a license stretches the word until it has no real meaning.
I didn't call the purchase of a CD a license; I said that you are licensing the right to listen to the music when you buy one, as opposed to buying "the music" itself. If you don't like "license," what would you call it? Grant? Permission? Does it matter? Buying an audio CD gives you no ownership rights to the copyrighted material contained within, nor does buying a software CD. Read the fine print on a typical major-label CD: "Unauthorized copying, hiring, lending, [etc.] prohibited", "All rights reserved," etc. Crowbars (and toasters) don't have the same restrictions; buying a crowbar is just that -- buying a crowbar. You're right that the law and not the manufacturer defines how you can and can't use the copyrighted material on a CD, but those definitions are different for audio and software. See the Audio Home Recording Act, for example. If you genuinely believe a manufacturer (or distributor, copyright holder, etc.) is attempting to bind you to a non-binding agreement, you're free to take it to court (usually, of course, it's easier just to ignore it). But try to challenge the restrictions printed on audio CD packaging and you will lose because of what the law restricts. I'd love to see the expression on the judge's face when you trot out your crowbar/toaster analogies.
You obviously are not getting it. As has been told to you over and over: The GPL is not restrictive. It _grants_ rights, it does not take them away.
You have so much invested in "GPL good, EULA bad" thoughtspeak that you can't grasp that both have the same function under the law.
Here is the EULA for a rather popular piece of German freeware I use called Exact Audio Copy:
Even if you are free to copy the program for private purposes, it is not allowed to
Make changes to the executable and distribute it
Disassemble / decompile the executable
Spread it together with other programs on CD-ROM, web sites or any other media without my permission. It is allowed to put it up on free FTP sites or make links directly to my homepage. Of course you can pass a copy of it to your family and friends.
For commercial use a special license is needed
Is this as unrestrictive as the GPL? Obviously not. Does it take away rights I would otherwise have? Obviously not. It in no way restricts my use of the software [same for the GPL], it restricts only certain things I can do (none of which are essential to its use) [same for the GPL]. Furthermore, it does grant me the right to redistribute it, a right I would not otherwise have [same for the GPL].
I can hear it now: "But that's not an EULA." Call it what you want -- terms of use license, usage license, 'license granted by copyright owner to all users of this software' -- it's all the same. Just because it doesn't look like one of Microsoft's EULAs doesn't mean it isn't one. It's a license, and so is the GPL.
And once again, the EULA does not have anything to do with copyright unless the EULA grants a copyright
And once again, the only reason the EULA can conceivably be imposed or enforced is because someone has a copyright. The only person who or entity that can impose the EULA is the copyright holder, or someone the holder has authorized to. Who requires you to abide by the terms of the GPL, should you wish to accept it? Who can sue you if you violate those terms once you do accept it? Without copyrights, there would be no EULAs, nor any need for the GPL, because neither would be enforceable. How, then, can you possibly assert that EULAs have nothing to do with copyright?
But then, it wouldn't be an 'EULA' in the common vernacular it would be a copyright license.
...which is it. "End User License Agreement": sure sounds like a license to me.
You have a completely different perception of what most EULAs are like than I do. I don't use bloated corporate software beyond the OS. I haven't installed any software with such restrictive EULAs in about two years, beyond updates to the OS. Much of the non-GPL'ed freeware I use has fairly simple, straightforward EULAs indeminifying the copyright holder from any damage to my PC, and allowing me to redistribute unmodified copies of the software. Go to any freeware download site; follow the links to the homepages of some of the programs. The majority of their EULAs would fall into your KAL category. Since these are the types of programs I use most often, I don't think of their EULAs as being contrary to the common vernacular. I think of them as the norm. Here's a hint: if you want to avoid POSL, stop using POSS (Piece of Shit Software). Someday I will take that advice for myself with regard to the OS, and then Microsoft-style EULA's will become a distant memory.
If you purchased a toaster do you ever think to license the use of the toaster?
Only someone who doesn't understand the difference between a book and a toaster could even formulate an argument this absurd.
"They" have gotten away with it since copyright was first established under Queen Anne. And you have consented to it everytime you have purchased any item that has the little copyright logo, as have billions of others, so there's plenty of legal precedent. Yes, when you buy a CD you are licensing the music; more specifically, you are licensing the right to play that music on whatever devices you have that render it playable. You do not, by any means, own that music -- you do not have the rights that ownership would grant you (performing it in public, redistributing an infinite number of copies, redistributing your own mixes of the source material, etc.). The only thing you own is the physical object itself. That is your property; the music itself is not.
Should all this be changed? Absolutely. But it won't be until more people pull their head out of their asses, as you so eloquently put it, and realize that it has not been changed. So get with the program.
And assuming that you're at least vaguely aware of the principles of copyright law then presumably you realise that it restricts copying, and public performance, not use.
Yes, I am, and yes, it does. However, it also in practice grants the holder certain additional rights, such as the right to prevent his work from being commercially available at all. And it allows him to impose restrictions on usage. I can have a clause in my contract with a publisher that gives me the right to approve any magazine excerpts of my work. I can write software for Macs and deny anyone the right to modify it for use under Windows, unless Apple prevents me from doing so. The first would be easy for me to enforce, the second more difficult, but that doesn't mean I can't impose the restriction.
If I write a book and give you a copy or sell you a copy or sell your best friend's mother's sister a copy and she lends it to you then you are 100% unquestionably entitled to read it. You can't copy it, that's what copyright is about, but read it sure of course you can. The same goes with software, go ahead and use it. It's copying that's forbidden by copyright law.
Correct, copyright does not prevent the accessing of information. I could read an unbought book in a bookstore, as long as the store owner didn't prevent me, without infringing anyone's copyright. But you can't "loan" software in the same manner as you can loan a book, which has a physical form that is a pain to duplicate. The only way my best friend's mother's sister could allow me to use software she's purchased, without infringing copyright, is to let me use it on her computer; that is, of course, unless she'd been granted redistribution rights by the copyright holder.
Rubbish. The user has countless rights. The user has every right not actually prohibited by law.
And those would be? A user only has the rights that purchasing a product allows him. I can give the shiny disc I bought to my cat to play with. But I can't actually (legally) use the software on the disc if the EULA says I can't until I agree to it's terms. You're confusing the distinction between the user's right to do what she wants with her property and the copyright holder's right to impose certain restrictions on the usage of material he has licensed to users. If I want to challenge the validity of the EULA's terms or its enforceability in court, that's another matter. But short of that, I have three options: agree & abide, pretend I agree and do what I want anyway, or return it for refund.
They purport to restrict rights that you would otherwise have.
No, a EULA that says "use it, modify it, redistribute it, just don't sell it" or "just give me credit," does not restrict rights you would otherwise have, it grants you far more rights than you would otherwise have. Most freeware I use not distributed under the GPL doesn't impose restrictions on usage or unmodified redistribution. It does this without surrendering the copyright holders' rights. Even the most laissez faire of licenses is still a license, and so are the most draconian. The issue isn't "licenses take away rights I have," the issues are "am I happy with the rights this license grants me?" and "are these terms I'm agreeing to (and the manner in which I'm being asked to agree - i.e., after I've purchased the software) enforceable?"
You have the same intrinsic right to modify software distributed with a EULA as you do software distributed under the GPL. You can purchase software, decline the EULA, and modify it to your heart's content. Doing so would invalidate any rights you've been granted under the EULA by the copyright holder (for example, warranty, support, or usage). By the same token, declining the GPL would invalidate the rights you've been granted by the GPL. Declining either is not copyright infrigement. Both have the same function: to grant you certain rights.
So, it is incorrect to state that the EULA prevents redistribution.
Yes, redistribution is always prevented by default. The point it that you have to agree to the terms of either license in order to be granted rights under that license. You have to agree to the GPL in order to be able to redistribute; you have to agree to a EULA in order to be able to redistribute. (In the latter case, the EULA you agree to must explicitly allow redistribution and may or may not allow you to distribute your modifications, and in the former, your right to redistribute your own modifications is granted with certain restrictions.) Simply because a EULA can impose more restrictions than the GPL doesn't mean it has a different function than the GPL under the law, a fact many people here seem to deny.
Slashdot Mirror
The report estimates that all 50 states could collectively lose more than $45 billion in Internet sales tax revenue in 2006.
Hmm, states can lose money that they don't currently collect? Isn't this a bit like saying, "Microsoft could lose more than $10 billion in annual revenue in 2006 if the government switched to Linux"? [Note: No, not a gratuitous MS swipe - I don't think MS would be so obnoxious as to use this phrasing.]
How about, "All 50 states stand to gain more than $45 billion in revenue by imposing a new tax they are not currently in a position to impose"? Seems like a more accurate rendering of the situation, although still somewhat hyperbolic since all 50 states are not considering this proposal. Some states don't have sales tax, period.
Michael
And the problem is: what the U.S. invents in Copyright laws, it will swap over to the Europe and other countries. Do you support this?
Sorry I did not make it clearer. First, the U.S. did not invent copyright, England did, under Queen Anne. For much of the 19th Century, the U.S. did not even abide by the copyright laws of other countries, largely because we didn't have a vast amount of exportable cultural production to worry about, so we didn't bother respecting the copyright restrictions other country's placed on their cultural production.
All that has changed, of course. Culture (or, as it has largely become, entertainment) is now a big U.S. export. So we do respect the copyrights of other nations and we expect ours to be respected. Nevertheless, copyright term has almost always, historically, been longer in Europe than in the U.S. Europe arrived at the current term of life of the creator +70 years earlier than we did. (Sorry, I don't know the exact year, but you can find it I'm sure.) The media conglomerates (the majority of which are foreign owned, and all of which do substantial business outside of the U.S.) wanted U.S. copyright term to be brought in line ("harmonized") with Europe's. This, in fact, was their most persuasive argument before Congress when they were lobbying for Congress to pass the CTEA. And in the recent Supreme Court challenge to the CTEA, the Solicitor General (arguing for the government's position), emphasized harmonization as an important motivating factor for Congress to extend copyright.
So I don't really understand how you can be worried about Europe following the U.S.'s lead with regard to copyright. Unfortunately for U.S. citizens, our government seems bent on following Europe's lead, thanks to intense lobbying efforts of a media industry that can best be described as "multinational," but certainly not "American."
Michael
This is exactly where the big media/entertainment industry should get to. Either you forget freedom of speech or you forget copywright laws over there in the U.S.
If only Europe and the Far East would let us here in the U.S. If you read the Eldred v. Ashcroft transcript, you'll see that harmonization with European copyright term was an important part of the government's argument that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was perfectly legitimate.
And then, of course, there are the RIAA Big Five:
AOL Time Warner - U.S.
Bertlesmann - Germany
Vivendi - France
EMI - U.K.
Sony - Japan
Michael
Reporter: I don't know who stole the documents. I got an anonymous tip to check Freenet and there they were.
As for me, I just hope to be able to use it to swap MP3s someday. :-)
Michael
How ironic that you mention the Constitution, when Freenet's de facto purpose is to subvert the following:
I might almost agree with you, had Congress not already subverted it by turning copyright from a limited monopoly into an effectively unending one. So now it becomes a question of "which subversion of the Copyright Clause is better?" My vote goes to Freenet & P2P.
Michael
I understand your analogy to bribery, though I don't entirely agree with it. I think the process is entirely too messy to square with that analogy. Politicians get contributions from competing interests all the time, and not every contribution results in a given vote one way or another on any given issue. MS might contribute a lot of money to a particular representative's campaign, and that representative might vote in a way that benefits MS in one instance, but vote in a way that does not benefit MS in another. Do you say that one vote was bought and the other not bought, or do you look at the way that representative votes and the reasons he articulates for why he votes the way he does, and draw your own conclusions? I think democracy works best when it's the voters who decide who is behaving ethically and who isn't.
Another post opined that what these contributions are really buying is not so much votes as access, and I agree. That gets to your point about the "voices of the ... richest" drowing out everyone else, which is a huge problem. That's why I think campaign finance reform is imperative. I don't think placing limits on the amounts that can be donated violates the First Amendment any more than the restriction against yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre does. Unrestricted donations are just as much a threat to our system of government as that kind of speech is to people's immediate physical safety. But banning contributions outright is denying people (and organizations of like-minded people) their right to a vital form of political expression, IMO. And I don't think that is (or should be) allowed under the First Amendment.
Michael
When you contribute money to a politician's campaign fund, you are not giving money to the politician personally. The politician is obliged to spend the money on his campaign and not on a diamond bracelet for his wife or girlfriend-on-the-side.
If you were pulled over by a cop and offered the cop money to look the other way, you would be committing a crime. It's called bribery. If the cop took it, he would be committing a crime. If instead you offered on the spot to write a check to the Policeman's Benevolent Society, under those circumstances your offer would still be considered a bribe, but the cop could take your check and still write you a ticket without committing a crime. He probably wouldn't (or shouldn't) accept it -- it has the appearance of being unethical. It's probably against all the rules for him to accept it. He'd be letting you off easy by not arresting you for attempted bribery, but your contribution itself isn't illegal. Your payment to the cop personally is illegal.
I think that's a reasonable analogy to the propriety of campaign donations. Any direct under-the-table payment to a politician is illegal. Campaign contributions are not, though they can certainly have the effect of making the politician whose campaign gets them appear unethical under the right circumstances. I question Berman's ethics when I see that his campaign has benefited so handsomely from Disney's largess, and were I in his district, I wouldn't vote for him. Unfortunately, most people don't pay much attention ... in the U.S., too many people don't even bother to vote, and too many more who do are woefully uninformed about whom they're voting for. I think that is a much bigger problem than campaign contributions by corporations or PACs or unions or private individuals. We get the government we deserve. Most of the checks and balances are in place, but they're largely ignored by the one group of people who have the final say as to who gets elected (and no, I don't mean the Supreme Court ).
Michael
Both soft-money and hard-money contributions to either political party should be flat-out illegal.
So you support repeal of the First Amendment?
Michael
Man, we are in trouble.
Michael
I don't doubt that this kind of still happens to a limited degree, but I think the degree is very limited and has been for quite sometime. It simply isn't worth the risk of getting caught, and members of Congress know how easy it is to get caught accepting a gift like an expensive notebook or a car. I know an editor who persuaded the publishing company he works for to send complimentary copies of a newly published book to every senator. (The subject of the book pertained to legislation pending in Congress.) Almost all the books were returned with gracious letters thanking the editor for his interest, but explaining that the publisher's price for the book exceeded the amount Congresspeople are allowed to accept as gifts. Many expressed support for the position taken by the book's author (which was well-known and obvious from the book's title), some said they were interested in the author's arguments and would purchase a copy (probably a tax write-off anyway!), most had no comments one way or the other.
There are plenty of perfectly legitimate ways for Congresspeople to get perks without accepting under-the-table gifts.
Michael
Yeah, MS was the only one under "Computers/Internet," but AOL Time Warner is on there under "TV/Movies/Music." AT&T, Bellsouth, Verizon...they're also internet providers, and all four of those companies gave more than MS did.
Exactly. I can understand why OpenSecrets felt a need to classify these companies the way it did, but their classifcations are already a bit behind the times. Would AOL have fallen under "Computer/Internet" before the merger with Time Warner? And even if they hadn't merged, categorizing the company former known as Time Warner under "TV/Movies/Music" ignores the fact that it was also an ISP.
Increasingly, all of these companies, from Microsoft to SBC, are in the communications business, whether they produce content or just serve as a conduit for the communications of others.
What the article mentions but never brings together is the ability of the player to win the game through peaceful(ie: not killing people) or criminal means.
It doesn't "bring together" that point because it's barely relevant. It's an interesting aside at most, which is how the article treats it.
It instead "brings together" the much more germaine point that there is a healthy market for games aimed at adults. It leaves the reader to draw his own conclusions about whether adults have a right to expect such games to be created and marketed, but rather pointedly implies that we do. It puts anyone who thinks this game should be taken off the market in the position of also thinking that only G-rated movies should be released and that all books published should be appropriate for children old enough to read. Certainly, there are people who feel this way, but the article doesn't let them disguise themselves. IMO, a good piece of writing.
Michael
Shouldn't it be cheaper than renting a movie?
Ideally, yes. But they probably don't want to undercut Pay-Per-View and on-demand movies on cable. On-demand has only just rolled out where I live, and I believe the price is $3.95 for a newer film, and $2.95 for older film. You get the film you purchase for 24 hours, you can stop/pause/start anytime. Don't know if you can rewind or fast forward.
Since when have the media conglomerates worried about giving consumers the short end of the stick?
They don't have to pay the store to store it or rent it to you.
They don't anyway. The stores pay them...stores buy videos and DVDs to rent to the store's customers. Ever notice how some videos cost $17.99-$19.99, while others cost $79.99-$89.99? The studios price the videos according to whether they think there will be much consumer demand to own. If they don't think there will be much demand, they jack-up the price because the video rental market will pay anyway. Often the promotional packaging for a screener will indicate "priced to sell" or "priced for rental," referring to which pricing platform that video will fall under.
Michael
Has anyone considered BMWFilms.com?
Yeah, The Star is the best film Madonna has been in since Desperately Seeking Susan. Those films, good as they are (many of them anyway), are really just commercials -- artsy action-adventure commercials made by big-name directors and featuring interesting casts, but commercials nonetheless. Why would BMW want to restrict redistribution? It's free advertising. If you get one from me, they don't have to pay for the bandwidth.
Michael
Now, I can understand the desire to prevent people from watching the movie on-line so that they can go see it in the theater first. But why is that such a priority anymore? Seems like they still make money either way. In some respects, they could make even more money. There are movies I want to see. I'd be happy to watch them if I had the tape, but I'm not so interested in making it to a theater to watch them. I'm sure there are lots of people that feel that way.
I think they would lose a lot more that way than they might gain (and I'm sure that's what they think). The goal is too maximize the revenue potential of each distribution channel. The studios have always been convinced that most people won't go out to a movie if they can or have watched it at home. Most films make a big chunk of their box office take on opening weekend, and then attendance drops off. With the methods currently in place, they can always pick up the people (read: $$$) who didn't catch the film in the theatres with the rental/sale release, but they don't lose any of the people who do go to the theatres -- people who might just stay home and rent if they had that option. A lot of people rent or buy a movie they liked when they saw it in the theatre. So the studios make money both ways, but they make more by getting people out to the theatres first.
My guess on the Harry Potter download being restricted to the U.S. is that Warner Bros. is just nervous about the whole thing. They want to get their feet wet and see how it goes. I doubt they'd have picked that film if the second Potter film weren't opening soon...it probably comes with at least a trailer for the new flick. It's hard to imagine they are very worried about piracy ... they know it has been all over the P2P networks for months already.
Michael
That's Australian dollars (the article is from an Australian news source.) I'm guessing you're in the U.S.? The charge in U.S. currency is $4.
As to your other points, I agree. I can imagine there being people for whom this deal would seem both reasonable and perhaps desireable. But I'm not one of them.
Michael
I've spent over $100 on CDs since January on CDs from non-RIAA labels,...
Out of curiosity, where did you find a list of RIAA affiliated labels? For the past 1.5 years, I've made every effort not to buy major-label CDs (I've done so twice, not counting used CDs, money from the sale of which doesn't go to the labels). Determining whether a so-called "indie" label is genuinely independent can be difficult enough. Sometimes they are wholly owned or majority-owned subsidiaries of a major label, sometimes they are independent with only a distribution agreement with one of the majors. The packaging can be confusing on this score. But even if the label is genuinely "indie," how do you know it isn't a member of RIAA and/or SoundExchange, which after all is just a trade organization? RIAA's website doesn't have a list of its member labels, that I can find.
Michael
If you sell me the toaster, then no, you can't impose any restrictions. If you try to make me sign a sale contract that restricts my usage of the toaster, said contract wouldn't hold up in court. What right do you have to impose such restrictions? What precedent can you cite? Real estate owners often have rights to impose certain restrictions on property they sell to someone (no temporary structures, for example), and those rights are grounded in centuries of common law precedent. But not the owners of common household appliances. How could you enforce such restrictions? The law deals in practical matters; it's not interested in restrictions that are unenforceable (which, realistically, would probably invalidate your attempt to license your toaster to me with any restrictions).
This is the whole problem with copyright law now ... it's becoming unenforceable. Well, ok, there are quite a few other problems with it too, but this is the reason for the unprecedented copyright crackdowns we're seeing. Instead of realizing its time has passed and trying to come up with new economic models, the powers that be are trying to strengthen it. Meanwhile, others are coming up with innovative ways to modify it, such as the GPL or the open audio license. None of this changes the fact that it is still around, for now. None of this changes the fact that EULAs and the GPL are manifestations of it. There is, really and for all practical purposes, no such thing as a binding EULA on the usage of a toaster. There is, really and for all practical purposes, such a thing as a binding EULA on the usage of copyrighted material. Why the difference? Because of copyright. Because copyright grants the creator of the material certain privileges that the owner of the toaster does not have. Why is it so hard for you to see the causal relationship between the existence (and enforceability) of EULAs and the existence of copyright law? Where do you think the authority to create EULAs comes from? Where does the authority to create (and enforce) the terms of the GPL come from? Property rights? Man, I hope not, because that's exactly what the media conglomerates want you to think. They want you to believe that copyright is the same as real property (hence the term "intellectual property"). Sure, there are certain similarities, but there are very important differences, which is why a book or a song or software is not treated the same as a toaster under the law. And that, at least, is as it should be.
Michael
Would you argue that a driver's license is the same thing as an EULA? Why not?
Hmmm....lemme guess. Maybe because the authority to grant and enforce EULAs and the GPL is grounded in copyright law, while the authority to grant and enforce drivers' licenses is not? Maybe because violating EULAs and the GPL might land you in civil court (unless you're really naughty), while driving without a license might land you in criminal court? Am I warm yet?
For the record, I don't think EULAs have much in common with fishing licenses either. Any license, on some level, has something in common with every other license, presuming it actually fits the definition of "license." But EULAs have more in common with the GPL than with any license granted by state or local authorities.
Michael
What if the toaster is patented?
Then you would not be permitted to copy its patented heating mechanism in the toaster you were marketing, unless you paid the patent holder for the right to do so. How difficult is that to understand? A patent can't demand that a consumer pay more for a product he has purchased in order to use that product. And if the toaster played a copyrighted jingle, then the toaster manufacturer either wrote that jingle, or paid a licensing fee to the copyright holder in order to use it. So you're in the clear. Even if the toaster maker didn't license the right to use the jingle, you're still in the clear. It's the toaster maker who has a problem.
Calling either purchase a license stretches the word until it has no real meaning.
I didn't call the purchase of a CD a license; I said that you are licensing the right to listen to the music when you buy one, as opposed to buying "the music" itself. If you don't like "license," what would you call it? Grant? Permission? Does it matter? Buying an audio CD gives you no ownership rights to the copyrighted material contained within, nor does buying a software CD. Read the fine print on a typical major-label CD: "Unauthorized copying, hiring, lending, [etc.] prohibited", "All rights reserved," etc. Crowbars (and toasters) don't have the same restrictions; buying a crowbar is just that -- buying a crowbar. You're right that the law and not the manufacturer defines how you can and can't use the copyrighted material on a CD, but those definitions are different for audio and software. See the Audio Home Recording Act, for example. If you genuinely believe a manufacturer (or distributor, copyright holder, etc.) is attempting to bind you to a non-binding agreement, you're free to take it to court (usually, of course, it's easier just to ignore it). But try to challenge the restrictions printed on audio CD packaging and you will lose because of what the law restricts. I'd love to see the expression on the judge's face when you trot out your crowbar/toaster analogies.
Michael
You obviously are not getting it. As has been told to you over and over: The GPL is not restrictive. It _grants_ rights, it does not take them away.
You have so much invested in "GPL good, EULA bad" thoughtspeak that you can't grasp that both have the same function under the law.
Here is the EULA for a rather popular piece of German freeware I use called Exact Audio Copy:
Is this as unrestrictive as the GPL? Obviously not. Does it take away rights I would otherwise have? Obviously not. It in no way restricts my use of the software [same for the GPL], it restricts only certain things I can do (none of which are essential to its use) [same for the GPL]. Furthermore, it does grant me the right to redistribute it, a right I would not otherwise have [same for the GPL].
I can hear it now: "But that's not an EULA." Call it what you want -- terms of use license, usage license, 'license granted by copyright owner to all users of this software' -- it's all the same. Just because it doesn't look like one of Microsoft's EULAs doesn't mean it isn't one. It's a license, and so is the GPL.
And once again, the EULA does not have anything to do with copyright unless the EULA grants a copyright
And once again, the only reason the EULA can conceivably be imposed or enforced is because someone has a copyright. The only person who or entity that can impose the EULA is the copyright holder, or someone the holder has authorized to. Who requires you to abide by the terms of the GPL, should you wish to accept it? Who can sue you if you violate those terms once you do accept it? Without copyrights, there would be no EULAs, nor any need for the GPL, because neither would be enforceable. How, then, can you possibly assert that EULAs have nothing to do with copyright?
Michael
But then, it wouldn't be an 'EULA' in the common vernacular it would be a copyright license.
...which is it. "End User License Agreement": sure sounds like a license to me.
You have a completely different perception of what most EULAs are like than I do. I don't use bloated corporate software beyond the OS. I haven't installed any software with such restrictive EULAs in about two years, beyond updates to the OS. Much of the non-GPL'ed freeware I use has fairly simple, straightforward EULAs indeminifying the copyright holder from any damage to my PC, and allowing me to redistribute unmodified copies of the software. Go to any freeware download site; follow the links to the homepages of some of the programs. The majority of their EULAs would fall into your KAL category. Since these are the types of programs I use most often, I don't think of their EULAs as being contrary to the common vernacular. I think of them as the norm. Here's a hint: if you want to avoid POSL, stop using POSS (Piece of Shit Software). Someday I will take that advice for myself with regard to the OS, and then Microsoft-style EULA's will become a distant memory.Michael
If you purchased a toaster do you ever think to license the use of the toaster?
Only someone who doesn't understand the difference between a book and a toaster could even formulate an argument this absurd.
"They" have gotten away with it since copyright was first established under Queen Anne. And you have consented to it everytime you have purchased any item that has the little copyright logo, as have billions of others, so there's plenty of legal precedent. Yes, when you buy a CD you are licensing the music; more specifically, you are licensing the right to play that music on whatever devices you have that render it playable. You do not, by any means, own that music -- you do not have the rights that ownership would grant you (performing it in public, redistributing an infinite number of copies, redistributing your own mixes of the source material, etc.). The only thing you own is the physical object itself. That is your property; the music itself is not.
Should all this be changed? Absolutely. But it won't be until more people pull their head out of their asses, as you so eloquently put it, and realize that it has not been changed. So get with the program.
Michael
And assuming that you're at least vaguely aware of the principles of copyright law then presumably you realise that it restricts copying, and public performance, not use.
Yes, I am, and yes, it does. However, it also in practice grants the holder certain additional rights, such as the right to prevent his work from being commercially available at all. And it allows him to impose restrictions on usage. I can have a clause in my contract with a publisher that gives me the right to approve any magazine excerpts of my work. I can write software for Macs and deny anyone the right to modify it for use under Windows, unless Apple prevents me from doing so. The first would be easy for me to enforce, the second more difficult, but that doesn't mean I can't impose the restriction.
If I write a book and give you a copy or sell you a copy or sell your best friend's mother's sister a copy and she lends it to you then you are 100% unquestionably entitled to read it. You can't copy it, that's what copyright is about, but read it sure of course you can. The same goes with software, go ahead and use it. It's copying that's forbidden by copyright law.
Correct, copyright does not prevent the accessing of information. I could read an unbought book in a bookstore, as long as the store owner didn't prevent me, without infringing anyone's copyright. But you can't "loan" software in the same manner as you can loan a book, which has a physical form that is a pain to duplicate. The only way my best friend's mother's sister could allow me to use software she's purchased, without infringing copyright, is to let me use it on her computer; that is, of course, unless she'd been granted redistribution rights by the copyright holder.
Rubbish. The user has countless rights. The user has every right not actually prohibited by law.
And those would be? A user only has the rights that purchasing a product allows him. I can give the shiny disc I bought to my cat to play with. But I can't actually (legally) use the software on the disc if the EULA says I can't until I agree to it's terms. You're confusing the distinction between the user's right to do what she wants with her property and the copyright holder's right to impose certain restrictions on the usage of material he has licensed to users. If I want to challenge the validity of the EULA's terms or its enforceability in court, that's another matter. But short of that, I have three options: agree & abide, pretend I agree and do what I want anyway, or return it for refund.
They purport to restrict rights that you would otherwise have.
No, a EULA that says "use it, modify it, redistribute it, just don't sell it" or "just give me credit," does not restrict rights you would otherwise have, it grants you far more rights than you would otherwise have. Most freeware I use not distributed under the GPL doesn't impose restrictions on usage or unmodified redistribution. It does this without surrendering the copyright holders' rights. Even the most laissez faire of licenses is still a license, and so are the most draconian. The issue isn't "licenses take away rights I have," the issues are "am I happy with the rights this license grants me?" and "are these terms I'm agreeing to (and the manner in which I'm being asked to agree - i.e., after I've purchased the software) enforceable?"
Michael
The right to 'modify' software is intrinsic.
You have the same intrinsic right to modify software distributed with a EULA as you do software distributed under the GPL. You can purchase software, decline the EULA, and modify it to your heart's content. Doing so would invalidate any rights you've been granted under the EULA by the copyright holder (for example, warranty, support, or usage). By the same token, declining the GPL would invalidate the rights you've been granted by the GPL. Declining either is not copyright infrigement. Both have the same function: to grant you certain rights.
So, it is incorrect to state that the EULA prevents redistribution.
Yes, redistribution is always prevented by default. The point it that you have to agree to the terms of either license in order to be granted rights under that license. You have to agree to the GPL in order to be able to redistribute; you have to agree to a EULA in order to be able to redistribute. (In the latter case, the EULA you agree to must explicitly allow redistribution and may or may not allow you to distribute your modifications, and in the former, your right to redistribute your own modifications is granted with certain restrictions.) Simply because a EULA can impose more restrictions than the GPL doesn't mean it has a different function than the GPL under the law, a fact many people here seem to deny.
Michael