Though his donor had been anonymous, his mother had been told the man's date and place of birth and his college degree. Using another online service, Omnitrace.com, he purchased the names of everyone that had been born in the same place on the same day. Only one man had the surname he was looking for, and within 10 days he had made contact.
Under the right circumstances, a small amount of seemingly insignificant information can be quite powerful. In this case it was a date of birth, a place of birth, and the existence of a college degree. Did anyone originally think that the donor could have been tracked down via that information? For more anonymity, the information provided about sperm donors might have to be reduced.
An actual unsolicited paper book plus an license
on
Textbooks With EULAs
·
· Score: 1
Ed Foster of Infoworld described a situation with a license agreement on a pharmaceutical book. The shrinkwrapped book was mailed to a physician. The license on the book claimed that the book was the property of Omnicare. Breaking the seal would indicate acceptance of the license. Those who did not accept the license terms were directed to "promptly return the material unopened to your local Omnicare pharmacy." Furthermore, the license would "terminate immediately if the Licensee or his or her employer ceased to be an Omnicare customer." The physician was not an Omnicare customer, so keeping the book or disposing of it might violate the license either way. Would it come down to shipping the book back or becoming an Omnicare customer? Note: Postal regulations state that individuals are not obligated to return unsolicited goods.
The UK even retroactively takes things out of the public domain
This happened in the USA with the URAA (Uruguay Round Agreements Act.) Certain foreign works were public domain in the USA because the copyright holders had not followed certain formalities. The URAA restored copyright to these works. As it was, the URAA had provisions for "reliance parties" (those who started exploiting a URAA-covered work prior to the URAA enactment.) Parties planning to enforce restored copyrights could notify a reliance party directly or they could have the Copyright Office publish a public notice. After being notified, reliance parties had a 12-month grace period before they had to honor the restored copyright. Reliance parties who had created a derivative work of a URAA-covered work were treated slightly different. Derivative works could continue to be exploited in exchange for paying compensation to the copyright holder of the URAA-covered work.
One web log said that trying to "harmonize" copyright laws can lead to a "copyright leapfrog" effect. This involves two sides repeatedly lengthening copyright terms in trying to keep up with each other.
In the meantime, consider producing works under licenses such as the GPL, the GNU Free Documentation License, the Free Art License, or a Creative Commons license with a "share-alike" provision. This is not perfect, but this would use copyright restrictions for preserving freedom. Those wanting to produce works under permissive licenses would have an advantage denied to the producers of proprietary-licensed works.
Back in 1989, an individual sent out a mass mailing to many recipients. The mailing consisted of an envelope including a floppy disk and a license agreement in small print. The software on the disk provided an assessment about the user's risk regarding HIV/AIDS. (Supposedly, users were encouraged to install and run the software.) However, the software also contained a hidden mechanism. After a delay, the mechanism would encrypt and hide files on the user's system. The license agreement specified a license fee ($189 one-off or a $378 "lifetime license") for using the software. This payment was to be sent to a PO box in Panama for "PC Cyborg Corporation." In addition, the license agreement warned of "most serious consequences" for failure to pay the license fee. A file left by the software said that users who paid would receive a "renewal software package." The originator of the software was tracked down but was found unfit to stand trial. (See the "Virus: AIDS Diskette" entry on this page.)
In one case, an individual was trying to extort money from a dairy company. The individual had already carried out an instance of product tampering against the company. The company was told to embed bank card details for an account into an image file. This image file was to be posted on a public Web site. The image was downloaded via an anonymity proxy service. The service cooperated and identified the user who had downloaded the image.
So the German government has created an additional fee for practicing fair use of already purchased content?
Fair use is not necessarily a good reason for imposing levies. A better reason is the fact that certain media will likely be used for illegal as well as legal copying. Imposing levies provides some compensation against this. This does not mean necessarily that levies on computer equipment, blank recording media, and music players are equally justified.
It is one thing to distribute a bogus media file that contains a "don't copy illegally" message. That copyright enforcment technique may be one of the better ones, because it mainly targets parties who illegally download copyrighted works. However, it is sneaky to secretly deploy software onto the user's system, or to install software without their knowledge. This includes but is not limited to spyware and adware.
if the correct activation code was not typed after 3 or more attempts, the floppy seek head would be moved across the sandpaper, destroying your drive.
There is indeed a posting on a copy-protection technique like this. Supposedly, it was discontinued due to liability. Imagine having an expensive system damaged because someone else secretly used a copy-protected disk without permission.
they had been using "free" for so long, switching terms would be counterproductive.
Establishing a new term and getting its use to spread could be a problem. There might be something to be said for having an additional term. There would be a problem because of what the term "free" has become associated with (software that preserves the user's freedom.) How would the use of a new term be counterproductive?
Free software (with respect to the FSF) emphasizes freedom, not lack of cost. Selling "free software" is allowed, but the rights of the purchaser with respect to freedom must be preserved. With GPL-covered software, the user cannot be prevented from further modification, redistribution, etc., of the software. The ambiguity was not necessarily done on purpose.
Dynamic linking is (not) allowed...
on
Revising the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Consider a proprietary program and a GPL-covered library. The program uses the GPL-covered library if it is available on the system. Otherwise, users are asked to install the library. It has been argued that the dynamic linking by an end-user may not necessarily violate the GPL. Even if the library headers are GPL-covered, they could be redone in a "clean room." Dynamic use of the library code might or might not constitute a "derivative work" with respect to copyrights. Could the GPL be circumvented by transferring GPL-covered code to a dynamically-linked library?
Having licenses that are compatible makes software development easier by increasing the circumstances in which code can be combined. On the other hand, having different licenses takes into account that people may feel differently about the details. This increases the number of people that may take part in free (as in "freedom") and open source software development. Which is better...?
This, as well as an interpretation of the current GPL patent stance is explained in great detail here.
Interesting, but confusing. The GPL says that patents (presumably incorporated into a GPL-covered work by the patent holder) "must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." It makes sense that incorporating a patent into a GPL-covered work under a restrictive patent license would be problematic. Would the "everyone" in the previous quote refer specifically to users of any GPL-covered work? Would "free use" mean usage specifically in GPL-covered works? Of course, the actual meaning could be different and interpretations could vary. The GPL supposedly applies to "copying, distribution, and modification" of GPL-covered works. Also, the license does not talk about patents specifically for the most part. If a patented technology was incorporated into a GPL-covered work by the patent holder, hopefully users could incorporate the patented technology into any GPL-covered work. This would be consistent with the fact that GPL-covered works can incorporate copyrighted code from other GPL-covered works. Even thought the GPL is a "copyright license", patented technology has the potential to impose restrictions if incorporated into a GPL-covered work.
Ed Foster of InfoWorld has written about EULAs for things besides software. Items such as vacuum tubes, digital cameras, and even books have had licenses applied. There was one case where an individual was sent a medical book, unsolicited, with a license agreement attached. The individual was not a member of the company that had produced the book. It appeared that keeping the book or disposing of the book would both violate the license either way. (Note: US postal regulations allow unsolicited mailed merchandise to be treated as a gift, with no obligation for return.)
what if you are buying a _computer_ and you don't have access to the internet? Exactly how do you get online to see this "great" EULA?
See this Slashdot story. A new PC displays a screen on startup telling the user to press a key to continue. The user is told that doing this indicates acceptance of the EULAs for the software included with the system. However, the owner did not want to open the shrinkwrapped software containers and so it was difficult to read the EULAs. Customer support assumed that the user was looking at a different screen. The user was told by tech support to press a key even though they had not read the EULAs.
It might mean having to find public Internet access i.e. at a library, and hoping that the EULAs are available online.
There is software such as the GnuPG utility which can verify digital signatures. The GnuPG software can be downloaded at no cost and can be freely used by everyone. There is an issue in making sure that the GnuPG software itself was not tampered with. A signature on the Web page does not help unless the page was obtained securely with SSL encryption, a trusted browser and a trusted OS... The GnuPG site has an Integrity Check section on verifying the download. They mention the use of a SHA1 calculator (which would have to be trusted.) Of interest, they also mention comparing the SHA1 hash to the ones provided by multiple sources. Presumably, it is less likely that all of the sources would have been tampered with. It is possible to contact a trusted party (but not using e-mail) and to obtain an SHA1 hash or a copy of the GnuPG software (i.e. on a CD.) This might involve some cost and going to some trouble. Perhaps parties could sell copies of the GnuPG software on CD-ROMs. It would be convenient if computer systems included copies of software such as the GnuPG utility. Presumably, the computer manufacturer would verify the software before including it.
With public-key encryption, there is also the "web of trust". It is necessary to have at least one trusted public key (or certificate) or a trusted fingerprint for a public key. This lets the user verify other public keys and files. Having more than one is better.
Signing can help in that people who trust a certain publisher can be assured that the software arrived from that publisher in unmodified form. Of course, the software used to verify the signature must also be trusted for this to work...
Signed software is very convincing but it would not necessarily help if the manufacturer overlooked a security hole or if someone at the manufacturer tampered with the software before it was signed. There was even an incident where Microsoft code-signing certificates were successfully obtained under false pretenses. (Notice the comments about revoking the certificates and about people overlooking expired certificates.) If something bad happens with signed software, there is the question of going after the manufacturer. For a situation like a security flaw leaking personal information, no amount of legal action may be able to expunge the information from Internet sites. This is where sandboxing of software and secure programming techniques are important, even with code signing.
A lot of software on the Internet, including security-related software, is distributed unsigned. Remember that a lot of this software is distributed by individuals, possibly at no cost. A lot of people likely go ahead and use this software despite the issue of it being unsigned. Interesting...
It is quite possible that the term "Mozilla" is trademarked and action could be taken if it was used in such a manner as to confuse people. Of course, defending a trademark can be very time-consuming and expensive.
That is correct. In the book, Mr. Wonka had a problem when people from rival companies would work in his factory. These workers would obtain inside information and the rival companies would produce imitations of Wonka brand products. Two of these companies were Slugworth and Prodnose. (The movie mentions the former of these two companies.) As a result, Mr. Wonka dismissed the human workers and used Oompa-Loompas instead.
In Canada, the rules allow downloading music from a p2p network without permission. Copying a borrowed CD is also permitted. Distributing copies to others is not necessarily permitted. These rules do not necessarily apply to other copyrighted works. Therefore, there might be something to be said for levies on blank media and certain devices used primarily for copying music. Of course, nothing is perfect. Consider someone downloading a song via p2p without permission and burning it onto a CD. On the other hand, consider someone purchasing a CD and making a copy on a CD-R for their convenience. The first situation justifies levies but not necessarily the second situation. It is hard to know what a buyer will use blank media for. There is also the issue of knowing who the levies should go to i.e. what songs get downloaded via p2p most often.
In the USA, downloading music via p2p without permission is not legally allowed. Even so, levies are charged on certain blank media used to record music. Unauthorized distribution of music is much more likely to involve CD-Rs than portable music players. Even so, someone might use a CD-R strictly to copy a CD they purchased. It was ruled that computer equipment and portable music players were not subject to the rules about levies. If someone purchases a CD and copies it to a portable music player, they are not likely to be hurting anyone.
The movie "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was different from the book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" in some ways. In particular, it was slightly less magical and somewhat more darker. Sometimes, trouble happened and Mr. Wonka certainly seemed to be slightly nonchalant. There were some parts that were depicted quite well, such as the various kids. Also, there were some parts that did not happen in the book. This included a rival candy maker tempting the kids to target Mr. Wonka.
Perhaps the new movie will be more like the book while remaining sufficiently appealing.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on where one looks, legal concerns over the Tetris game are not necessarily new. In 1989, the notable game Tetris: The Soviet Mind Game, which was produced by Tengen, was removed from the market after a legal ruling against Tengen. (It would be interesting to know as to whether the actual issue was one of copyright or trademark.) In addition, it has been said that there was a now-obscure Tetris game that was released for the Sega Megadrive console.
Over the years, there have been multiple instances where games have resembled existing games. For instance, on the Apple Macintosh platform, there was the shareware Bakudanjin game which has been regarded as a clone of the Bomberman video game. (According to the iDevGames "Bakudanjin Postmortem" article, producing a game that constituted a clone was one of the aspects that didn't work so well with the Bakudanjin project, even though the Bakudanjin game was successfully released.) In addition, there was the freeware Arashi game which is said to be similar to the Tempest video game.
Though his donor had been anonymous, his mother had been told the man's date and place of birth and his college degree. Using another online service, Omnitrace.com, he purchased the names of everyone that had been born in the same place on the same day. Only one man had the surname he was looking for, and within 10 days he had made contact.
Under the right circumstances, a small amount of seemingly insignificant information can be quite powerful. In this case it was a date of birth, a place of birth, and the existence of a college degree. Did anyone originally think that the donor could have been tracked down via that information? For more anonymity, the information provided about sperm donors might have to be reduced.
Ed Foster of Infoworld described a situation with a license agreement on a pharmaceutical book. The shrinkwrapped book was mailed to a physician. The license on the book claimed that the book was the property of Omnicare. Breaking the seal would indicate acceptance of the license. Those who did not accept the license terms were directed to "promptly return the material unopened to your local Omnicare pharmacy." Furthermore, the license would "terminate immediately if the Licensee or his or her employer ceased to be an Omnicare customer." The physician was not an Omnicare customer, so keeping the book or disposing of it might violate the license either way. Would it come down to shipping the book back or becoming an Omnicare customer? Note: Postal regulations state that individuals are not obligated to return unsolicited goods.
Another article from Ed Foster talks about EULAs on non-software items, including a digital camera.
The UK even retroactively takes things out of the public domain
This happened in the USA with the URAA (Uruguay Round Agreements Act.) Certain foreign works were public domain in the USA because the copyright holders had not followed certain formalities. The URAA restored copyright to these works. As it was, the URAA had provisions for "reliance parties" (those who started exploiting a URAA-covered work prior to the URAA enactment.) Parties planning to enforce restored copyrights could notify a reliance party directly or they could have the Copyright Office publish a public notice. After being notified, reliance parties had a 12-month grace period before they had to honor the restored copyright. Reliance parties who had created a derivative work of a URAA-covered work were treated slightly different. Derivative works could continue to be exploited in exchange for paying compensation to the copyright holder of the URAA-covered work.
One web log said that trying to "harmonize" copyright laws can lead to a "copyright leapfrog" effect. This involves two sides repeatedly lengthening copyright terms in trying to keep up with each other.
In the meantime, consider producing works under licenses such as the GPL, the GNU Free Documentation License, the Free Art License, or a Creative Commons license with a "share-alike" provision. This is not perfect, but this would use copyright restrictions for preserving freedom. Those wanting to produce works under permissive licenses would have an advantage denied to the producers of proprietary-licensed works.
It is also worth considering the role of money in politics.
Back in 1989, an individual sent out a mass mailing to many recipients. The mailing consisted of an envelope including a floppy disk and a license agreement in small print. The software on the disk provided an assessment about the user's risk regarding HIV/AIDS. (Supposedly, users were encouraged to install and run the software.) However, the software also contained a hidden mechanism. After a delay, the mechanism would encrypt and hide files on the user's system. The license agreement specified a license fee ($189 one-off or a $378 "lifetime license") for using the software. This payment was to be sent to a PO box in Panama for "PC Cyborg Corporation." In addition, the license agreement warned of "most serious consequences" for failure to pay the license fee. A file left by the software said that users who paid would receive a "renewal software package." The originator of the software was tracked down but was found unfit to stand trial. (See the "Virus: AIDS Diskette" entry on this page.)
In one case, an individual was trying to extort money from a dairy company. The individual had already carried out an instance of product tampering against the company. The company was told to embed bank card details for an account into an image file. This image file was to be posted on a public Web site. The image was downloaded via an anonymity proxy service. The service cooperated and identified the user who had downloaded the image.
So the German government has created an additional fee for practicing fair use of already purchased content?
Fair use is not necessarily a good reason for imposing levies. A better reason is the fact that certain media will likely be used for illegal as well as legal copying. Imposing levies provides some compensation against this. This does not mean necessarily that levies on computer equipment, blank recording media, and music players are equally justified.
It is one thing to distribute a bogus media file that contains a "don't copy illegally" message. That copyright enforcment technique may be one of the better ones, because it mainly targets parties who illegally download copyrighted works. However, it is sneaky to secretly deploy software onto the user's system, or to install software without their knowledge. This includes but is not limited to spyware and adware.
if the correct activation code was not typed after 3 or more attempts, the floppy seek head would be moved across the sandpaper, destroying your drive.
There is indeed a posting on a copy-protection technique like this. Supposedly, it was discontinued due to liability. Imagine having an expensive system damaged because someone else secretly used a copy-protected disk without permission.
they had been using "free" for so long, switching terms would be counterproductive.
Establishing a new term and getting its use to spread could be a problem. There might be something to be said for having an additional term. There would be a problem because of what the term "free" has become associated with (software that preserves the user's freedom.) How would the use of a new term be counterproductive?
Free software (with respect to the FSF) emphasizes freedom, not lack of cost. Selling "free software" is allowed, but the rights of the purchaser with respect to freedom must be preserved. With GPL-covered software, the user cannot be prevented from further modification, redistribution, etc., of the software. The ambiguity was not necessarily done on purpose.
Consider a proprietary program and a GPL-covered library. The program uses the GPL-covered library if it is available on the system. Otherwise, users are asked to install the library. It has been argued that the dynamic linking by an end-user may not necessarily violate the GPL. Even if the library headers are GPL-covered, they could be redone in a "clean room." Dynamic use of the library code might or might not constitute a "derivative work" with respect to copyrights. Could the GPL be circumvented by transferring GPL-covered code to a dynamically-linked library?
License compatibility.
Having licenses that are compatible makes software development easier by increasing the circumstances in which code can be combined. On the other hand, having different licenses takes into account that people may feel differently about the details. This increases the number of people that may take part in free (as in "freedom") and open source software development. Which is better...?
This, as well as an interpretation of the current GPL patent stance is explained in great detail here.
Interesting, but confusing. The GPL says that patents (presumably incorporated into a GPL-covered work by the patent holder) "must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." It makes sense that incorporating a patent into a GPL-covered work under a restrictive patent license would be problematic. Would the "everyone" in the previous quote refer specifically to users of any GPL-covered work? Would "free use" mean usage specifically in GPL-covered works? Of course, the actual meaning could be different and interpretations could vary. The GPL supposedly applies to "copying, distribution, and modification" of GPL-covered works. Also, the license does not talk about patents specifically for the most part. If a patented technology was incorporated into a GPL-covered work by the patent holder, hopefully users could incorporate the patented technology into any GPL-covered work. This would be consistent with the fact that GPL-covered works can incorporate copyrighted code from other GPL-covered works. Even thought the GPL is a "copyright license", patented technology has the potential to impose restrictions if incorporated into a GPL-covered work.
Ed Foster of InfoWorld has written about EULAs for things besides software. Items such as vacuum tubes, digital cameras, and even books have had licenses applied. There was one case where an individual was sent a medical book, unsolicited, with a license agreement attached. The individual was not a member of the company that had produced the book. It appeared that keeping the book or disposing of the book would both violate the license either way. (Note: US postal regulations allow unsolicited mailed merchandise to be treated as a gift, with no obligation for return.)
what if you are buying a _computer_ and you don't have access to the internet? Exactly how do you get online to see this "great" EULA?
See this Slashdot story. A new PC displays a screen on startup telling the user to press a key to continue. The user is told that doing this indicates acceptance of the EULAs for the software included with the system. However, the owner did not want to open the shrinkwrapped software containers and so it was difficult to read the EULAs. Customer support assumed that the user was looking at a different screen. The user was told by tech support to press a key even though they had not read the EULAs.
It might mean having to find public Internet access i.e. at a library, and hoping that the EULAs are available online.
There is software such as the GnuPG utility which can verify digital signatures. The GnuPG software can be downloaded at no cost and can be freely used by everyone. There is an issue in making sure that the GnuPG software itself was not tampered with. A signature on the Web page does not help unless the page was obtained securely with SSL encryption, a trusted browser and a trusted OS... The GnuPG site has an Integrity Check section on verifying the download. They mention the use of a SHA1 calculator (which would have to be trusted.) Of interest, they also mention comparing the SHA1 hash to the ones provided by multiple sources. Presumably, it is less likely that all of the sources would have been tampered with. It is possible to contact a trusted party (but not using e-mail) and to obtain an SHA1 hash or a copy of the GnuPG software (i.e. on a CD.) This might involve some cost and going to some trouble. Perhaps parties could sell copies of the GnuPG software on CD-ROMs. It would be convenient if computer systems included copies of software such as the GnuPG utility. Presumably, the computer manufacturer would verify the software before including it.
With public-key encryption, there is also the "web of trust". It is necessary to have at least one trusted public key (or certificate) or a trusted fingerprint for a public key. This lets the user verify other public keys and files. Having more than one is better.
Signing can help in that people who trust a certain publisher can be assured that the software arrived from that publisher in unmodified form. Of course, the software used to verify the signature must also be trusted for this to work...
Signed software is very convincing but it would not necessarily help if the manufacturer overlooked a security hole or if someone at the manufacturer tampered with the software before it was signed. There was even an incident where Microsoft code-signing certificates were successfully obtained under false pretenses. (Notice the comments about revoking the certificates and about people overlooking expired certificates.) If something bad happens with signed software, there is the question of going after the manufacturer. For a situation like a security flaw leaking personal information, no amount of legal action may be able to expunge the information from Internet sites. This is where sandboxing of software and secure programming techniques are important, even with code signing.
A lot of software on the Internet, including security-related software, is distributed unsigned. Remember that a lot of this software is distributed by individuals, possibly at no cost. A lot of people likely go ahead and use this software despite the issue of it being unsigned. Interesting...
It is quite possible that the term "Mozilla" is trademarked and action could be taken if it was used in such a manner as to confuse people. Of course, defending a trademark can be very time-consuming and expensive.
That is correct. In the book, Mr. Wonka had a problem when people from rival companies would work in his factory. These workers would obtain inside information and the rival companies would produce imitations of Wonka brand products. Two of these companies were Slugworth and Prodnose. (The movie mentions the former of these two companies.) As a result, Mr. Wonka dismissed the human workers and used Oompa-Loompas instead.
In Canada, the rules allow downloading music from a p2p network without permission. Copying a borrowed CD is also permitted. Distributing copies to others is not necessarily permitted. These rules do not necessarily apply to other copyrighted works. Therefore, there might be something to be said for levies on blank media and certain devices used primarily for copying music. Of course, nothing is perfect. Consider someone downloading a song via p2p without permission and burning it onto a CD. On the other hand, consider someone purchasing a CD and making a copy on a CD-R for their convenience. The first situation justifies levies but not necessarily the second situation. It is hard to know what a buyer will use blank media for. There is also the issue of knowing who the levies should go to i.e. what songs get downloaded via p2p most often.
In the USA, downloading music via p2p without permission is not legally allowed. Even so, levies are charged on certain blank media used to record music. Unauthorized distribution of music is much more likely to involve CD-Rs than portable music players. Even so, someone might use a CD-R strictly to copy a CD they purchased. It was ruled that computer equipment and portable music players were not subject to the rules about levies. If someone purchases a CD and copies it to a portable music player, they are not likely to be hurting anyone.
Does this "copying of music for private use" law only apply to blank media that has levies applied?
The movie "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was different from the book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" in some ways. In particular, it was slightly less magical and somewhat more darker. Sometimes, trouble happened and Mr. Wonka certainly seemed to be slightly nonchalant. There were some parts that were depicted quite well, such as the various kids. Also, there were some parts that did not happen in the book. This included a rival candy maker tempting the kids to target Mr. Wonka.
Perhaps the new movie will be more like the book while remaining sufficiently appealing.