Yes. If you look at the definitions section of copyright, you'll notice that a "physical copy" is defined as the physical piece of plastic/magnetic tape/hard drive/whatever that the program is stored on. When you buy a piece of software, you OWN the physical copy so per 117.a.1.i you own the program. You cannot license a PHYSICAL copy, you can only own, rent, or lease it.
No, the semantics of the ad are in fact correct. The semantics of the (shrinkwrap) licensing are bullcrap.
You ARE buying a copy (the physical object) of Cinderella.
You are NOT buying the right (license) to make further copies, nor are you buying the right (license) to display it publicly.
Buying the copy (the physical object) grants you all *other* rights pertaining to use of that copy (specifically including private home display/performance, which as I indicated above, is an inherent right that goes with ownership of a particular physical copy and is *never* held by the copyright holder except when he never sells or otherwise parts with a physical copy).
Why is it that slashbots are so uninformed about copyright law, and what it actually means and does? Either that, or you're being deliberately obtuse and playing on words.
Copyright law itself differentiates between an idea (a truly nebulous concept that literally exists only as a construct of the mind), a copyrighted work (defined as the semi-nebulous set and ordering of words, notes, digital bytes, or what have you that are the particular expression of an idea), and a copy (defined as the physical object upon which the set and ordering of words, notes, etc. are actually set down/recorded upon). Once you understand these three things, you'll better understand copyright law.
When you download a Linux distro off the web, to copyright law, the "copy" you downloaded is literally that little physical slice of your hard drive upon which the bytes are stored.
Copyright law is... drum roll... basically about the right to make copies - those physical copies. Because the nature of some works (like movies and recorded music, not so much books or written music) is that they are only "understandable" when actually performed (usually with the aid of a mechanical device), it is also about the right to control *public* performance of said work.
The problem is we use "copy" as a noun and a verb in the English language, and rarely differentiate between "first generation copy, the creation of which was authorized by the copyright holder" and "second generation copies, the creation of which was NOT authorized by the copyright holder."
Simply put, copyright law states that the copyright holder has the (mostly) exclusive right to authorize the creation of new copies. This right is separate and distinct from the physical copy itself. When he sells, trades, throws away, or otherwise disposes of a particular copy (the physical object, remember), he relinquishes control over how that particular copy is used - EXCEPT that he does not relinquish the right to forbid people from using that particular copy to make "Second generation copies" and/or publicly performing it. This is where the Doctrine of First Sale comes from - when Disney sells you a copy of Cinderella, they relinquish the right to forbid you from using the disc as frisbee, coaster, or (big) earring, for instance.
So yes, you own the DVD. Disney sold you a copy. But they did NOT sell you the copyright. These are two separate and distinct things. "Fair Use" might (IANAL, TINLA) allow you to rip/mix/burn copies for your own personal use. You could also argue that because copyright law defines a "computer program" as a set of instructions to be interpreted by a computer to achieve a desired effect, and your computer can interpret a DVD as a set of instructions to create the desired effect of playing a movie, you are authorized to back it up by the software backup clause of copyright (which provides you the right to make archive/backup copies of software - with no limiton the number of copies, I might add - provided that you dispose of all such archival copies when you dispose of the first-generation copy they came from).
Where Disney *IS* off its nut is in saying that the disc is "licensed for home use only." COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DO NOT HOLD THE RIGHTS TO LICENSE SOMETHING FOR "HOME USE!" They *only* hold the rights to license something for public display... in other words, they can say, "this is not licensed for public display" because they hold those rights... but telling you it's "licensed for home use" is misleading - when you purchase a lawful copy of something, you automatically have the right to use it in your home (that is not a "public performance") regardless of whether the copyright holder wants you to or not.
In other words, they're telling you that they're giving you a license/right to (a) something you ALREADY had the right to do and (b) something they do not have the legal right to restrict you from doing anyway. It may sound stupid, but it's a semantics game, and a nasty one at that, bec
I don't think the grandparent was saying that the Founding Fathers practised a given religion. I think he was pointing out that obviously the Founding Fathers thought so highly of the good that could be accomplished by religion in general that they ensconced the right to practice religion in the same "breath" with such a fundamental right as the right to freedom of speech.
They may not have subscribed to any religion in particular, but that it appears in the first amendment tells me they thought religion in general was not a negative thing.
How about instead of term limits on Congress, have "space limits" on laws... in conversation with a lawyer friend of mine, he admitted that he doesn't even know all of the laws IN HIS AREA OF SPECIALIZATION! I asked him how we could justify, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" when even a trained professional, whose job it is to know the law, doesn't know the law. He had no answer.
No, we don't need term limits on Congresscritters. What we need is a Constitutional amendment to the following effect:
The sum total of all laws currently in force as enacted by Congress must be less than 50,000 words, with *no* references to external sources allowed (that's approximately 96 pages).
If Congress wants to put something new in, that's great... but they'll have to take something out. Furthermore, it does a terrific job of (a) allowing the average citizen to understand what the laws are and (b) forcing the law to be concise, well-thought-out and well-written, and most importantly, a statement of general principles that are to be equitably applies across the board - not one riddled with loopholes.
For reference, the US Constitution, including all amendments and enumeration of amendment numbers, clauses, phrases, sections, etc. is a total of 7,709 words (as counted by copy/pasting into MS Word). It's pretty freaking clear on the general principles of law involved (some of the amendments less so).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. If you look at the definitions section of copyright, you'll notice that a "physical copy" is defined as the physical piece of plastic/magnetic tape/hard drive/whatever that the program is stored on. When you buy a piece of software, you OWN the physical copy so per 117.a.1.i you own the program. You cannot license a PHYSICAL copy, you can only own, rent, or lease it.
No, the semantics of the ad are in fact correct. The semantics of the (shrinkwrap) licensing are bullcrap. You ARE buying a copy (the physical object) of Cinderella. You are NOT buying the right (license) to make further copies, nor are you buying the right (license) to display it publicly. Buying the copy (the physical object) grants you all *other* rights pertaining to use of that copy (specifically including private home display/performance, which as I indicated above, is an inherent right that goes with ownership of a particular physical copy and is *never* held by the copyright holder except when he never sells or otherwise parts with a physical copy).
IANAL, TINLA.
Why is it that slashbots are so uninformed about copyright law, and what it actually means and does? Either that, or you're being deliberately obtuse and playing on words.
Copyright law itself differentiates between an idea (a truly nebulous concept that literally exists only as a construct of the mind), a copyrighted work (defined as the semi-nebulous set and ordering of words, notes, digital bytes, or what have you that are the particular expression of an idea), and a copy (defined as the physical object upon which the set and ordering of words, notes, etc. are actually set down/recorded upon). Once you understand these three things, you'll better understand copyright law.
When you download a Linux distro off the web, to copyright law, the "copy" you downloaded is literally that little physical slice of your hard drive upon which the bytes are stored.
Copyright law is... drum roll... basically about the right to make copies - those physical copies. Because the nature of some works (like movies and recorded music, not so much books or written music) is that they are only "understandable" when actually performed (usually with the aid of a mechanical device), it is also about the right to control *public* performance of said work.
The problem is we use "copy" as a noun and a verb in the English language, and rarely differentiate between "first generation copy, the creation of which was authorized by the copyright holder" and "second generation copies, the creation of which was NOT authorized by the copyright holder."
Simply put, copyright law states that the copyright holder has the (mostly) exclusive right to authorize the creation of new copies. This right is separate and distinct from the physical copy itself. When he sells, trades, throws away, or otherwise disposes of a particular copy (the physical object, remember), he relinquishes control over how that particular copy is used - EXCEPT that he does not relinquish the right to forbid people from using that particular copy to make "Second generation copies" and/or publicly performing it. This is where the Doctrine of First Sale comes from - when Disney sells you a copy of Cinderella, they relinquish the right to forbid you from using the disc as frisbee, coaster, or (big) earring, for instance.
So yes, you own the DVD. Disney sold you a copy. But they did NOT sell you the copyright. These are two separate and distinct things. "Fair Use" might (IANAL, TINLA) allow you to rip/mix/burn copies for your own personal use. You could also argue that because copyright law defines a "computer program" as a set of instructions to be interpreted by a computer to achieve a desired effect, and your computer can interpret a DVD as a set of instructions to create the desired effect of playing a movie, you are authorized to back it up by the software backup clause of copyright (which provides you the right to make archive/backup copies of software - with no limiton the number of copies, I might add - provided that you dispose of all such archival copies when you dispose of the first-generation copy they came from).
Where Disney *IS* off its nut is in saying that the disc is "licensed for home use only." COPYRIGHT HOLDERS DO NOT HOLD THE RIGHTS TO LICENSE SOMETHING FOR "HOME USE!" They *only* hold the rights to license something for public display... in other words, they can say, "this is not licensed for public display" because they hold those rights... but telling you it's "licensed for home use" is misleading - when you purchase a lawful copy of something, you automatically have the right to use it in your home (that is not a "public performance") regardless of whether the copyright holder wants you to or not.
In other words, they're telling you that they're giving you a license/right to (a) something you ALREADY had the right to do and (b) something they do not have the legal right to restrict you from doing anyway. It may sound stupid, but it's a semantics game, and a nasty one at that, bec
I don't think the grandparent was saying that the Founding Fathers practised a given religion. I think he was pointing out that obviously the Founding Fathers thought so highly of the good that could be accomplished by religion in general that they ensconced the right to practice religion in the same "breath" with such a fundamental right as the right to freedom of speech.
They may not have subscribed to any religion in particular, but that it appears in the first amendment tells me they thought religion in general was not a negative thing.
And as has been said before...
"If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind" is a strawman when it comes to privacy.
When I go to the bathroom to poop, I'm *not* hiding. That doesn't mean I want everyone watching.
How about instead of term limits on Congress, have "space limits" on laws... in conversation with a lawyer friend of mine, he admitted that he doesn't even know all of the laws IN HIS AREA OF SPECIALIZATION! I asked him how we could justify, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" when even a trained professional, whose job it is to know the law, doesn't know the law. He had no answer.
No, we don't need term limits on Congresscritters. What we need is a Constitutional amendment to the following effect:
The sum total of all laws currently in force as enacted by Congress must be less than 50,000 words, with *no* references to external sources allowed (that's approximately 96 pages).
If Congress wants to put something new in, that's great... but they'll have to take something out. Furthermore, it does a terrific job of (a) allowing the average citizen to understand what the laws are and (b) forcing the law to be concise, well-thought-out and well-written, and most importantly, a statement of general principles that are to be equitably applies across the board - not one riddled with loopholes.
For reference, the US Constitution, including all amendments and enumeration of amendment numbers, clauses, phrases, sections, etc. is a total of 7,709 words (as counted by copy/pasting into MS Word). It's pretty freaking clear on the general principles of law involved (some of the amendments less so).
Just a thought.