If it's Fair use to rip your CDs, then it's Fair Use to rip your CDs even if there is DRM in the way.
Yes, that's correct. But the DMCA doesn't alter "fair use". What it does is outlaw the act of cracking a DRM scheme. Even if what you are cracking it for is a fair and legal use.
Isn't that clever!
It's like in Canada, where prostitution is legal, but "communicating for the purposes of prostitution" is illegal. Uh, so how are you supposed to....??
really - whether this was a settlement or a judgement, it really has nothing to do with "testing" the GPL.
1. some people (Drew) wrote some software that complied to (implemented) a standard. 2. the standard is copyrighted by someone else, the SAE (the issue of whether they can copyright or charge royalties on something that's part of the law I think is a side issue). 3. SAE tried to claim ownership of the copyright of the software, claiming it was a "deriviative work" of the standard. 4. they were unsuccessful in doing so, the core reason being because copyright only covers a particular composition of text, not the "ideas, procedures, processes, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries," that may be described, explained, illustrated, or embodied" within it. if I write a book explaining how to turn lead into gold, you can't copy the sentences and paragraphs I wrote. but you can certainly write your own book explaining the same procedure. this is a long-standing principle, and no new legal ground was broken here - no precedents. 5. Drew was confirmed as the legal copyright owners of their software, not the SAE, which was what the case was about. 6. Drew (had) happened to release the code under the GPL. This is an expression of how they wish to excercise their copyrights. But nothing about the GPL was tested or decided. Only that Drew owns the copyright, which allows them to release it under GPL, and SAE cannot prevent them from doing that because SAE does not own the copyright because it is not a derivative of SAE's copyrighted work.
the validity and terms of the GPL never entered into it. talk about a "victory for the GPL" is nonsense.
for theft, i must take something from you, and you must no longer have it. if i steal your CD, that's theft. if i copy your CD, that's not theft. it might be illegal in some countries (not in Canada where i live) but it is not theft.
"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
-- U.S. Supreme Court, Dowling vs. United States
the fact remains that every time a piece of such software is pirated someone, somewhere loses money.
and god kills a kitten.
This is not a "fact" at all. In general, how does someone lose money by the fact that someone who would never in a million years have given them any money in the first place, uses a copy of their software (or music)? You have to have the money before you can lose it. Speculating on how much money you would have made, if only you had: a) won the lottery b) bought that SCO stock c) sold a copy of your crappy software to some Iranians
does not allow you to claim damages when it doesn't happen.
For various reasons, there is no market for Microsoft to make money in Iran. There is no market for Windows on the moon either. How much money has Bill Gates lost because those dirty non-existent moon creatures refuse to pay him licencing fees?
There is no pirated software in Iran. Iran is one of the few countries that have not signed any copyright treaties. There are no laws against copying software in Iran, all copies of Windows are therefore legal. No-one is doing anything wrong. Really - think about this. Copyright is not some inherent birthright of mankind. Just because copying software is illegal in one place doesn't make it immoral in another.
The real reason for OSS to become popular in Iran is because you can customize it. Which has been done for example, to support the Iranian language, Farsi, which Windows does not support - and won't, as long as their own country bars them from selling to Iran. Sometimes it seems like people forget that this is the best reason to use OSS for anyone - because if you don't like the way it works, you can change it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's correct. But the DMCA doesn't alter "fair use". What it does is outlaw the act of cracking a DRM scheme. Even if what you are cracking it for is a fair and legal use.
Isn't that clever!
It's like in Canada, where prostitution is legal, but "communicating for the purposes of prostitution" is illegal. Uh, so how are you supposed to....??
really - whether this was a settlement or a judgement, it really has nothing to do with "testing" the GPL.
1. some people (Drew) wrote some software that complied to (implemented) a standard.
2. the standard is copyrighted by someone else, the SAE (the issue of whether they can copyright or charge royalties on something that's part of the law I think is a side issue).
3. SAE tried to claim ownership of the copyright of the software, claiming it was a "deriviative work" of the standard.
4. they were unsuccessful in doing so, the core reason being because copyright only covers a particular composition of text, not the "ideas, procedures, processes, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries," that may be described, explained, illustrated, or embodied" within it. if I write a book explaining how to turn lead into gold, you can't copy the sentences and paragraphs I wrote. but you can certainly write your own book explaining the same procedure. this is a long-standing principle, and no new legal ground was broken here - no precedents.
5. Drew was confirmed as the legal copyright owners of their software, not the SAE, which was what the case was about.
6. Drew (had) happened to release the code under the GPL. This is an expression of how they wish to excercise their copyrights. But nothing about the GPL was tested or decided. Only that Drew owns the copyright, which allows them to release it under GPL, and SAE cannot prevent them from doing that because SAE does not own the copyright because it is not a derivative of SAE's copyrighted work.
the validity and terms of the GPL never entered into it. talk about a "victory for the GPL" is nonsense.
please repeat after me: copying is not theft.
for theft, i must take something from you, and you must no longer have it. if i steal your CD, that's theft. if i copy your CD, that's not theft. it might be illegal in some countries (not in Canada where i live) but it is not theft.
"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
-- U.S. Supreme Court, Dowling vs. United States
I made mine into a physical avatar for giving toasts at a dinner party.
and god kills a kitten.
This is not a "fact" at all. In general, how does someone lose money by the fact that someone who would never in a million years have given them any money in the first place, uses a copy of their software (or music)? You have to have the money before you can lose it. Speculating on how much money you would have made, if only you had:
a) won the lottery
b) bought that SCO stock
c) sold a copy of your crappy software to some Iranians
does not allow you to claim damages when it doesn't happen.
For various reasons, there is no market for Microsoft to make money in Iran. There is no market for Windows on the moon either. How much money has Bill Gates lost because those dirty non-existent moon creatures refuse to pay him licencing fees?
There is no pirated software in Iran. Iran is one of the few countries that have not signed any copyright treaties. There are no laws against copying software in Iran, all copies of Windows are therefore legal. No-one is doing anything wrong. Really - think about this. Copyright is not some inherent birthright of mankind. Just because copying software is illegal in one place doesn't make it immoral in another.
The real reason for OSS to become popular in Iran is because you can customize it. Which has been done for example, to support the Iranian language, Farsi, which Windows does not support - and won't, as long as their own country bars them from selling to Iran. Sometimes it seems like people forget that this is the best reason to use OSS for anyone - because if you don't like the way it works, you can change it.