The BD and HDDVD players need to be firmware-updatable so that cracked keys can be revoked. The occasional snafu like this helps train consumers to cooperate with the process. You've got it backwards. The disc "revokes" the player, and the firmware update would be the only way to un-revoke it.
A simplified explanation is that the AACS revocation process works like this: A disc has multiple copies of a single media key on it. The media key is needed to decrypt the movie on that disc. Each copy of the media key is encrypted differently. Each copy corresponds to a group of players. Every player will be in one of those groups, unless he's been "revoked" by leaving off the encrypted copy of the media key corresponding to the group that he's in.
The AACS can change the groupings to leave off a single player or a whole bunch of players. When a player finds the group it's in, it looks up or calculates the matching device key and decrypts the media key it needs. If it can't find a group that it's in, it knows it has been revoked. Once a disc has been made that does not contain a group containing the player, there's no way for the player to play that disc.
The only way to be unrevoked, ie. to play a disc that does not have an encrypted media key for a group the player is in, would be to give the player a new ID and a new set of device keys that match its new ID. I don't even know if that capability is built into players.
But they issue patents of ideas. Amazon's 1-click is a perfect example. I could write code that would enable 1-click purchases. And it certainly wouldn't be same code that they wrote. Yet, if I did I would be open to lawsuits because I implemented their idea - even if the actual implementation was totally different. I suspect you could build a telegraph that would have different batteries and different size wires, and different shaped switches to turn on and off the signal on the wires. Your "new" implementation of a telegraph would probably still infringe Mr. Morse's valid patent claims (the one they allowed after they took out the ones that were too broad because they covered the "idea").
This is basically true of all patents - software and hardware. If you ask a skilled engineer to design a machine to accomplish the same result, he will seldom build one that looks exactly like the patented invention. Sometimes his design will infringe, sometimes not. You would have to look at how the machine worked to determine if there is infringement.
I don't know exactly how all the 1-click claims read. There were more than 100 of them and I only saw a few. I suspect that you could write code that would infringe and code that would not. From the point of view of the patent office, they did not allow a patent on an "idea" just because you could write code to achieve the same result.
Why can't they reject it on the grounds that software shouldn't be patentable?
Patents were never intended to protect ideas.... the particular device that the original designer came up with is protected, not the goal he set out to accomplish. Patents don't cover ideas. They don't allow it now and they didn't allow it when the patent system started. When Samuel Morse patented the telegraph, he tried to claim all ways of using electromagnetic force to transmit letters or symbols to a distance. His claim was rejected because it was directed to an idea, not a method or apparatus for achieving that result.
The problem is that you think software is an "idea" while the U.S. Patent Office does not. If they did, they would reject software patents. I agree with you that a "goal" someone "sets out to accomplish" is no more than an idea - and it shouldn't be patented. The U.S. patent laws also agree with that point of view. But software is not an expression of a desired goal, it's (usually) a specific way of achieving that goal.
I don't think it works that way. The BSD license says you can use, change, add, modify as long as you do include this license with the copyright and permissions stated.
Simply changing BSD code wouldn't remove the BSD license. I agree that changing the BSD code (producing a derivative work) does not remove the BSD license (from the original code). If someone copies only portions of your work that can be traced to the original BSD code, then they aren't infringing any rights you may have in the changed work. It's just like incorporating public domain work in your own code - anyone copying the PD parts is not copying your work, even if they got it from your work. To prove copyright infringement, you would have to prove they copied something that you have rights in. BSD works the same way.
... all the BSD files you started with, even if you modified them will have to have a BSD license on them. The GPL has this type of requirement in the license. You can't use the starting code unless you agree to grant rights in your parts of the new copyrighted work. The BSD does not have that type of requirement.
The BSD license doesn't allow for the license to be removed. It isn't being removed from the part of the work it applies to, it's just not being expanded to the new parts that it does not apply to. That's the fundamental difference between the GPL and BSD. The GPL requires you to give up certain rights in your own work. It's exactly like using PD material. If you use PD material in code you write, you don't give up your rights in your part of the code (it doesn't become PD), and the PD material does not suddenly become copyrighted by you even though you used it.
Similarly, BSD licensed work remains BSD protected/licensed even when you use it, while your part of the work is your work and is protected by copyright. You could 1) keep your work proprietary, 2) license it BSD, or 3) license it GPL. If the work started as GPL options 1 and 2 would be prohibited by the license that let you use it to start with, but the BSD license does not require that.
So I have a file with a license that says "You can distribute and modifiy provided you do: A, B and C". That's pretty clear to me. Then you're going to add another piece of text saying that "No, no, you can't. Here's what I want you to do in order to modify and distribute: You need D, E, F, G and H". If you start with a BSD file, there are two cases to consider: the case where you did not add copyrightable material (the work is essentially unchanged) and the case where you did (you now have a derivative work).
Case 1 (you have no copyright claim to anything in the work): There is nothing that prohibits you from adding GPL license terms to the BSD terms, but if someone violates the GPL terms, they are not infringing your copyright, so you have no (copy) rights that you can enforce against them.
Case 2 (you have added some copyrightable elements to the original work): Now if you add GPL terms to the BSD license terms you have some rights that you can enforce. Anyone who violates the GPL terms would be liable to you for copyright infringement.
If the license on the work says that you can only print it once and you print it twice then, yes, it is copyright infringement.
If you then go telling the world that you did this then, yeah, expect the copyright holder to use the power the law has given him.
I don't know why you're trying to make an incredulous argument.. copyright is by nature nonsensical.
I agree that the coupon is probably copyrightable. I agree that if a license said an individual person can only print it once, then printing it twice is probably copyright infringement, but in this case, it appears that there was no such license. Other posts have said they relied on the software to restrict multiple printings, so that the copyright license is implied, and may be implied to mean that you can only print it once per computer, or once per each time you reinstall the OS or once per virtual machine session, or once per each time you clean your registry and delete all the junk that 3rd parties put on it to track what you do and where you go and restrict use of your own computer.
It would clearly have been copyright infringement for him to photocopy the first printed coupon, but that's not what he did. If what he did violated the DMCA, then reinstalling the OS after a crash and printing another coupon would also be a DMCA violation.
If you buy an MP3 and resell it legally (destroying all copies you have) you're LEGALLY in the clear, or if you purchase it as a gift (and again, destroying all copies you have) The idea that "destroying all copies" when you sell or give away an original CD or mp3 will put you "LEGALLY in the clear" is widely spread throughout the virtual universe and makes lots of sense in the "common sense" sort of way, but it is an idea that has no real legal merit, at least not under copyright law.
If a professor wants to quote part of a book in an article criticizing that book, he has a fair use right to copy the quoted portion, and he doesn't have to destroy all copies of his article when he sells his copy of the original book. That's the whole point of "fair use" - it's a legal copy
Usually this idea comes from those who believe that they have a "fair use" right to make a copy of a CD for their mp3 player. Copyright law does have the concept of fair use, but if it was a "fair use" to make the copy, then it was legal to make that copy, and the legality of the copy does not disappear when you transfer ownership of the original.
I'm not saying there is no fair use right to make an mp3 copy of your CDs, nor that you should keep copies of your CDs after selling the original - just that the "fair use" concept of copyright law wasn't created with the digital world in mind. A judge or jury might think it was important that you did or did not keep the copies when assessing damages, etc.
Some works of authorship (a downloaded mp3) may come with a license, and the license may allow limited copies, provided they are destroyed or transferred with the original, but no CDs I know explicitly allow copying, so, technically, you wouldn't be legally clear if the mp3 wasn't legal as a "fair use" and if it was a legal copy when made, the copyright law doesn't have anything in it that says you have to destroy it if you sell the CD.
the website owner typically gives you the right to copy when he makes it available. Of course, he needs to have the right to let you make the copy, which is no problem if he's the copyright owner. In the case of the GPL, however, he's not. A downloader can only get the right to make the downloaded copy directly from the GPL.
This is incorrect. The copyright holder can allow someone else to distribute the software.
I agree with "The copyright holder can allow someone else to distribute the software." I don't see why you think that conflicts with my statement above. The GPL is prepared by the copyright owner and clearly allows others to distribute.
Time for thought experiment #2:
I like thought experiments!
Here's the file again:... I am the copyright holder of that file. (Seriously, I am.) I hereby grant you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to distribute the software on a website of your choosing. (No, I'm not kidding. Go right ahead.) You may not apply any additional terms to the software when you offer it for download.
Good so far - now you have granted me a written license to distribute by means of a website. Although you didn't specifically say it, I think most would agree that in order to implement that license, it includes the right necessary for downloaders to make and use a copy downloaded from my website.
Ok, let's follow this through. Visitor comes to your site. The file is available for download because you have the rights to make it available for download. However, there is no license in the file, near the file, or referencing the file. The visitor downloads the file. Question: Is the visitor now in violation of copyright law?
My answer: "No." You granted the specific right for me to distribute by way of website and included no requirement that I have my downloaders agree to any license.
I would say the GPL is clearly a different situation: 1) It does not say I can distribute by website, and leave silent the right for downloaders to copy 2) Because it is not silent on the right for downloaders to copy, but explicitly gives downloaders the right to copy, provided they agree to the GPL, there is no need to assume that the copyright owner granted an implied license for downloaders to copy, and 3) the GPL specifically requires that as a distributor, you impose the GPL on others who wish to exercise any of the three rights of copy, modify or distribute.
Innocent infringement was the term I was looking for. And the penalties aren't reduced for the situation. According to the letter of copyright law, the penalties are $750-$30,000 and increase if the infringement can be shown to be "willing" infringement.
You mean "willful" infringement, not "willing," but I follow you.
The specific term "innocent infringement" is not used in copyright law save for a special exception for semiconductor products (Title 17 Section 907) which mentions "innocent purchaser".
The term is widely used to refer to someone who didn't know they were engaged in coyright infringement, usually because the copyrighted work had no copyright notice. The US law previously required such a notice, but the rest of the world objected to the requirement of a notice, so it was removed as a requirement in the US and made optional.
The US copyright Office says: "Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected." and "use of a notice on such a work will defeat a claim of innocent infringement" Link:http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
So technically you are correct about it still being a crime. Practically, it's not so cut and dry. This is an area where the letter and the implementation of law tend to diverge. Take this example: My father-in-law brought me a computer game from Russia when he came to visit us. The game was a localized ver
If a file is downloadable on a website, who made the file available? Presumably, the website owner. Therefore he is giving you a right to a copy. We agree - the website owner typically gives you the right to copy when he makes it available. Of course, he needs to have the right to let you make the copy, which is no problem if he's the copyright owner. In the case of the GPL, however, he's not. The FSF holds the copyright and they only allow copying by those who agree to the GPL. The website owner does not have any right to directly license others to make any copies. The website/distributor only has the right to make copies himself. A downloader can only get the right to make the downloaded copy directly from the GPL. That's how I analyze it.
Who transferred a secondary copy from the desktop to the laptop? Presumably, the owner of the computers. Who is on the hook in that situation? The owner of the machines. We agree on this.
Illegal downloading never enters into this argument. It's neither here nor there. But we don't agree on this. I see legal and illegal downloading as the same situation, except that in one case the downloader is authorized to make the copy by the copyright owner and in the other he is not.
GPL software has an initial distribution mechanism that is independent of the GPL. You can purchase a copy for download or on physical media, or you can download a copy for free. Doesn't matter. You don't need the GPL to own that initial copy. I understand your position. I think you understand mine. Let's agree to disagree.
Here. A download for you: There is no license anywhere in that file... Now tell me, what are your rights to that file? A fair question. I'd say you were granted the right to make the download by the copyright owner. He need not grant that right in writing, it is implicit in the making it available for download. You probably do not have the right to make any further copies, to modify it or distribute it because that would not necessarily be implied by the mere act of allowing it to be downloaded (although others might differ on the "copying" issue). If there was a written license (like the GPL) that would control.No, you are NOT violating copyright law because you made a copy. You are violating the law because you are knowingly obtaining a copy from someone who does not have the rights to offer you that copy. Read the copyright law again. There's nothing there prohibiting "knowingly obtaining a copy". The law prohibits copying. You do not infringe a copyright by buying a black market copy of Windows Vista. (You do infringe by putting it in RAM or on the HD since it's not a copy you legally own, but let's not go down that road again:-)
A legitimate defense is that any reasonable person under the circumstances of illegal distribution would have thought that the distribution was legal. That is known as "innocent infringement" under the copyright law. It's still infringment, but the penalties are reduced.
knowingly receiving stolen goods. Basically, you knew about the infringement, therefore you are also guilty of the infringement. Buying a black market CD is not copyright infringement, but it may violate non-copyright statutes.
Now will you please get this ridiculous idea out of your head that you need the GPL to download software? As I've been repeatedly stating, the GPL's language is very clear that it is predicated on the idea of NOT taking effect when the software is downloaded. What do you base this conclusion on? You wrote above that the downloader was given the right to make the copy by the website owner. If the downloader makes the copy, he needs the GPL to make it. There is no other legal way for him to make the copy. You would do better trying to argue that the website owner made the downloaded copy, since he's the only one who has that right. I wouldn't agree, but you'd at least have a logical argument.
You are a legal owner of a copy of the software when you download it or receive it on disc. Why do you choose to argue the things we've agreed on, then ignore the points I try to make on the issues we disagree on? We already agreed you are the legal owner when you receive a copy on a disc. The GPL does not apply to that situation. We agreed on that from the beginning.
I also agreed the question of who makes a "copy" when you download is a closer question, so I made it simple, citing the case of making a second personal copy for your second computer, and you agreed that the GPL license was required for that personal/user situation.
You then returned to the issue of whether downloading is copying, so I gave the example of illegal downloading. You are violating copyright law when you illegally download, and the reason you are violating copyright law is because the act of downloading involves making a copy. You responded to that scenario by calling it a "strawman" argument and ignoring it.
I believe the law is clear - a person who downloads a file is making a copy and needs authorization to make that copy. The GPL clearly gives a downloader that authority. If you want to argue that the downloader does not need any authority to download, fine, I can't convince you otherwise. It doesn't really affect the underlying point that the GPL grants three types of rights - copying, modifying and distributing, and you need to agree to the GPL when you want to exercise any of those rights.
You do NOT need the GPL to become a legal owner. I agree. Did you think I didn't? We were discussing whether downloading is making a copy, not whether you need to agree to the GPL to become an owner.
I can't make this any simpler. If it's not sinking in, then I'm afraid I cannot help you. Do you understand where we disagree? It's on the simple question of whether downloading involves making a copy. I think the law is clear that it does. If illegal downloading did not involve making a copy, then it wouldn't be illegal. If you have some evidence that downloading does not involve the downloader making a copy, then I'll be happy to consider it and acknowledge I was wrong if I'm convinced. I agree it's a closer case and reasonable people might differ. Perhaps the sender could be considered the party making the copy. It wouldn't make any difference to the point that I made - the GPL applies when you want to make a copy, make changes or distribute.
If you manage to understand that part of it, we'll go on to seeing if we can clear up your confusion on modifications. I don't think I have any confusion on the application of the GPL to modification. You didn't address the points I made, but I'm still willing to discuss it. You've agreed that the GPL applies to non-distribution when you want to make a second personal copy for your laptop. It also applies when you want to make a second modified copy (a "derivative work"). The GPL applies to the modified copy for the same reason it did to the unmodified copy. I scarcely see how you can accept one and not the other.
For the umpteenth time, the law explicitly provides for certain forms of copying. Your previous examples of loading a copy on the hard drive and RAM (which is what I was responding to)
And as we discussed, the law only applies when you are already "the owner of a copy." If you don't own the copy, then the law does not apply, but the GPL would authorize this. The GPL gives you the bootstrap to make the first "owned" copy that lets you make the RAM/HD additional copies. We agree that if someone else makes the first copy and distributes it to you, then you don't need the GPL. But if you have to make it yourself, then you need to agree to the GPL to make that bootstrap copy, and if you refuse to agree to the terms of the GPL, then the RAM/HD copies are not legal copies. This isn't all that complex - it's just standard copyright law.
[Quoting Section 117]Read it, reread it, and read it again until it makes sense.
I'll respectfully ask you to do the same. You must have a legally owned copy for this to apply. If you don't, the RAM and HD copies are not legal. If you make a copy of a GPL program, but refuse to agree to the GPL, then the first copy is unlawful, which makes the subsequent RAM and HD copies unlawful as well. They go together as a package.
If Bob used P2P or an illegal FTP site to download an unauthorized copy of software do you think that what Bob did was legal because he did not engage in "copying"?
Sir, this is a dictionary perfect example of a "strawman argument". I would request that you cease such nonsensical arguments immediately, and please pay attention to what is actually being said.
With respect, why do you think it is a strawman argument? Isn't part of this discussion about whether downloading requires authorization from the GPL? Aren't we in agreement that a user who wishes to copy a GPL program to his laptop needs to agree to the terms of the GPL? So isn't it relevant whether "downloading" constitutes "copying" under the copyright law?
I'll be honest with you, you're not making any sense at all. If you agree with these things, then why continue to invent scenarios for the GPL to kick in in which the GPL does NOT kick in?
I keep seeing posts that say the GPL only applies to distribution. It's simply not true. It's true that the terms of the GPL are most restrictive as they apply to distribution, but the license is not limited to distribution. I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding that it covers copying and modification, and there are lots of non-distribution scenarios that a user might run into. Making a copy for your laptop and downloading a copy are not invented scenarios. They are common.
I can't tell if you agree the GPL is required to modify the software (it is).
I was actually quite clear on the circumstances regarding modification:
You can probably [modify the software] without invoking the terms of the GPL, simply because the copy is your personal property.
Ownership of a copyrighted work grants no right to make a derivative work. It's a basic tenet of copyright law.
To add to that, any modifications you do that you don't share are effectively a no-op. Since no one ever sees them, there is no way for the terms of the GPL to apply.
That's like saying if no one finds out I've downloaded a copyrighted movie, I haven't infringed the copyright. You either have a license to make the derivative work or you don't. The GPL grants you the license, so why are you objecting to what it already gives you?
In standard copyright parlance, modification of a computer program is an act of creating a derivative work. Now the copyright laws specifically state in Section 103 that only the owner of a copyright can prepare a derivative work. However, Section 107 explicitly curbs those rights per "fair
The law in the United States is very clear on the matter of copying software. It doesn't track copies so much as it tracks the individual right or license.....
If you're referring to the laws of other countries, then they don't apply to this discussion. To say that copyright law doesn't track copies is an odd view of the law. You almost seem to be arguing that only a distributor can engage in "copying." That's not the law. If Bob used P2P or an illegal FTP site to download an unauthorized copy of software do you think that what Bob did was legal because he did not engage in "copying"? It's a nice argument, but it won't work. If he didn't make a "copy" what right did he violate? Copying is distinct from distribution.
We agree you need the GPL to distribute, but you also need it for the other two cases. No, you don't. Both US Copyright law and the GPL agree with me. Please revisit the earlier posts in this thread for a complete explanation as to why. The GPL licenses all 3 rights. I can't see how you can argue that it only licenses one. The only issue is under what circumstances you are making a "copy" and therefore need the GPL license. We agree that it's not needed in the U.S. if you already own a copy and just want to run it. You agreed it's needed if you want to install it on your 2nd computer. I can't tell if you agree the GPL is required to modify the software (it is).
My point was that GPLed code can become a pox if one is not careful. My point was NOT that it is always a pox. GPLed code is useful in many situations. We agree on this. To be clear, I think we are more in agreement than disagreement. You just seem to emphasize the situations where the GPL is not required, while I'm emphasizing those where it is.
I own a legal copy of GPL'd software that I run on my desktop. I want to make another copy for my laptop. Don't you agree that you need permission from the copyright owner [via the GPL]to make the second copy of the copyrighted software?
That is correct, though easily circumvented. If you download another copy for your laptop rather than making a copy from the desktop, then the GPL would not kick in. Now we are back to the question of who made the copy when it gets downloaded. Is it the person who makes it available or the person who initiates the download? That's a legal question that may not be decided the same way in all jurisdictions. The GPL allows the copy to be made no matter who made it. The same issue arises in the legal question of whether you can store it on your hard disk or load it into your RAM. Those are generally considered to be "copies." While most jurisdictions allow those actions provided you own a legal copy, the GPL removes any doubt by granting the right to copy to the end user.
I completely agree that one can set up cases for an end user where the user is not bound by the GPL. Copyright law doesn't apply to use, only copying, modifying and distributing (etc.)
However, your specific concern was over the rights to the initial copy. As I said, that copy is legal and encumbered only by copyright law unless you wish to redistribute. The GPL clearly grants the right to 1) copy, 2) modify and 3) distribute. You can't modify or copy without the GPL, and most users need one or the other in one or more jurisdictions in one or more situations. I just find it odd when people claim that the GPL only applies to distribution when that's clearly only one of the three rights it grants. If you need one of those rights, you need the GPL. If you don't, you don't. It seems simple to me.
As the GPL itself says:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
Without the GPL you cannot redistribute. With the GPL you can. Nothing else grants you rights of redistribution. We agree you need the GPL to distribute, but you also need it for the other two cases.
Also, you seem to be of the opinion that I am a great fan of the GPL. While I've developed a healthy respect for it and the logic used to power it, I still feel that it places unnecessary burdens on software authors. I'm much more trusting of your average human being, and would rather see community-developed software under a license like BSD or public domain. However, the GPL still has its uses. Actually, I hadn't formed an opinion about your position on the GPL. I just wanted others to know where I stood. When I say the GPL binds more than just distributors, I'm not saying it's "viral" and I'm not trying to spread FUD. I'm just trying to be accurate about how it works.
[The GPL] only controls the rights it grants you. It would be a mistake to think that the GPL grants you a free hand in redistribution. Where one can easily fall afoul of the GPL is if you mix your own software with GPL software. That makes it a pox upon your code rather than a benefit. So one does need to be careful before basing their software upon GPLed code. You may call it a "pox," but others will call it a blessing. If you don't want to make your code "free as in speech" then don't use the work of those who want it kept free. It's worth noting that the GPL gave you the benefit of everyone else's work and allowed you to modify the GPL code (you needed the GPL to legally produce your "derivative work") without any real impediment. Even though you have to agree to the GPL to make your improved code, it imposes no obligation with respect to use. It only begins to have teeth when you want to distribute. That's not the same thing as saying it only applies when you distribute. The terms of the GPL are defensive and act to protect those who want to copy or modify. The terms of the GPL only go on the offense when you want to distribute in a way that is not "free as in speech".
A fair enough argument, but ultimately flawed. If you offered your own software for download with no further licensing restrictions, it would be perfectly legal for someone to come along and download a copy. They can only keep that copy (and backups/operational copies) and cannot give it to anyone else unless they transfer all copies. (Per first-sale doctrine.) You seem to be focusing on who makes the copy of GPL'd software. Let's make it simple. I own a legal copy of GPL'd software that I run on my desktop. I want to make another copy for my laptop. Don't you agree that you need permission from the copyright owner to make the second copy of the copyrighted software? That's the first right of a copyright owner - the right of reproduction. Don't you agree that it's legal to make the second copy and install it on the laptop? Where does the right to make the second copy come from if not from the GPL? The GPL clearly authorizes "copying" to make the second copy provided that you comply with the terms of the GPL. There's nothing "flawed" about that - it's how the GPL works - both copying and distribution are allowed.
As for your comment that "it would be perfectly legal for someone to come along and download a copy" of my own software, I don't see what that has to do with your argument or the GPL. If it's my software I can make it public domain, or grant any sort of license. As for the first sale doctrine, it has no bearing on the issue of whether a user is bound by the GPL.
The GPL is predicated on the idea that click-wrap licenses may not be legal in your state/country, and that it should only be adding rights rather than taking them away. To that end, the GPL is designed not to kick in when you download a copy of GPLed software. It's only once you provide the software to someone else that the GPL takes effect. Without agreeing to the GPL, you would violate copyright law in distributing the software. Thus you must agree to the terms of the license in order to redistribute the software. These are the "additional" rights that the GPL provides. Your conception of the GPL is too simple. At its heart it's a plain and simple license. I know it's fashionable to claim that the GPL only adds rights and never takes them away, but that's just a self-delusion. The GPL controls rights. It does it in a way that's compatible with the "free as in speech" philosophy, but it's still control. If the intent wasn't to control rights in the software, it would have been released into the public domain, not licensed under the GPL. The GPL sets what you can and can't do with the software. It permits copying and distribution, but only under certain well known "free as in speech" conditions. By keeping the copyright, the GPL can be sued to enforce the conditions on distribution and copying, but, in exchange, everyone who wants to make a copy must have permission under the GPL to make it.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm a huge fan of the GPL. I'm not attacking it, I love the way it works, but it's often misunderstood.
I don't disagree with anything you posted, except that you start from the assumption that the user has a legal copy of a copyrighted program, while I start from the point before he has such a copy: "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make [a copy]." My post simply said that the GPL gives a user the right to make a copy and become "the owner of a copy" without infringing any rights of the copyright owner. Once you have made the legal copy you are then the owner and have the right to use it in the normal way. Without that legal first copy, the other copies are still infringements.
If I download a program, the person I got from distributed it. I copied it.
No, that's not correct. The distributor made a copy and gave it to you. This is comparable to purchasing a book or CD. You don't "copy" the book or CD when you acquire it. It's possible for either party (distributor or buyer or someone else)to make the copy during a distribution. That's why they are distinct actions. If you buy 1000 counterfeit CDs, and sell them, you violate the distribution right, even though you didn't copy the CDs and didn't violate the right of reproduction. When you download a program onto your hard drive, you make a copy. When you load it into RAM, you make a copy.
The distributor made or otherwise obtained copies that he's providing you. This is what's known as the "first sale". No, the "first sale doctrine" means that a copyright owner can't control the resale of a copyrighted work. Once he's paid by the first buyer, that's all he gets. It doesn't relate to copying. If a user doesn't need to copy, then I agree he's not bound by the GPL, but it's pretty unusual to not need to make any copies.
The GPL only kicks in when you make a non-backup copy of the copy you received. (Standard copyright law makes it legal for you to make backup copies.) Agreed, but most court decisions have ruled that a downloader makes a copy and the process of loading into RAM involves making a copy, so a user will typically make one or more copies.
This is actually how the GPL is designed. You receive a copy from someone who has the rights to distribute the software. It could be the author, or a GPL licensee. You now are completely free to use the software as you choose with no restrictions save for those placed upon you by copyright law. I disagree. Copyright law says you can't make copies without permission of the copyright owner. The GPL give you that permission. It's the GPL that lets the user make effective use of software, not copyright law.
Copyright law says that you can't make a copy and give it to a friend because only the owner of the software has the "right" to "copy". However, the owner can delegate that right per his or her choosing. Agreed
The GPL provides a unilateral offer to become a distributor. It does more than that. Look at 17 USC 106 (yes, I'm in the U.S., but similar laws apply around the world) which lists the exclusive rights a copyright owner has. The first is the right to reproduce (copy). The second is the right to change (derivative work), the third is the right to distribute. The GPL grants rights under all three and repeatedly refers to the right to make copies, which is a right the user needs. It's just about the only right he really needs, but he does need it and he gets it only from the GPL. Without the GPL, he'd be violating the copyright whenever he made a copy.
If they decide to distribute what they have done, that is when the restrictions under the GPL kick in, not one minute before. Clearly we disagree. The GPL kicks in when you make a copy. Without the GPL you can't make a copy (right 1) you can't make changes (right 2) and you can't distribute (right 3). Of course, since the GPL is so open with respect to use, I can see why you might think it doesn't apply, but legally it's needed for the GPL to work inside the context of copyright law.
Would you like to explain the difference between "copying" and "distribution"? Last I checked, distribution of software involved "copying". Ergo, you're saying the exact same thing I just said.:-/ If I download a program, the person I got from distributed it. I copied it. If I put it on my laptop later, I copied it again, but still didn't distribute it. Copying is not distributing. Distributing is not copying. Copyright law treats them as separate and distinct rights of the copyright owner.
it's questionable if the GPL would activate if you did not share the code with anyone. The GPL doesn't "activate." It's an agreement between the parties. If you want to make a copy of a copyrighted program, the law says you need permission from the copyright owner, and you get that from the GPL, but you have to agree to be bound by its terms whatever they are.
Since you did not accept the GPL when a copy was issued to you (see section 5 of the GPLv2) it's reasonable that you could modify the code without accepting the license. Section 5 says you don't have to accept the license. Without the license, however, you can't copy it, and generally, you need the right to copy to actually make use.
Realistically, the GPL is a no-op if you don't distribute (it really only imposes terms on distribution), so it doesn't matter one way or another. We don't differ much, but I like the fact that the GPL is an agreement - a personal connection - between the author(s) and the recipients. Those who accept the benefits of the GPL are obligated to follow its terms - even if the terms are easy for users.
You do realize that the "GPLv2 or later" clause is a choice that is made by the redistributor at the time of distribution, right? So Microsoft could *choose* to distribute under GPLv2 or v3. If they don't distribute, they're not bound by the license. This is not accurate. GPL code is copyrighted code. You can't copy it without a license. You can't modify it (make a "derivative work") without a license, etc. Even if you don't distribute GPL code, you are "bound by the license" because you need the rights the GPL license gives you to legally make copies of the copyrighted code. The tradeoff for the right to copy that GPL gives a user is the obligation of being bound under the terms of the GPL.
Of course, it's true that most of the obligations of the GPL relate to distribution restrictions, not restrictions on use, but the user is clearly bound by the license since it is the GPL that gives the user his right to copy and change the code.
As for the time of the choice between GPLv3 vs GPLv2, theoretically, the user should probably choose at the time he exercises any right under the license, i.e. when he copies the code or changes it. As a practical matter, however, he would need to choose only when he wants to do something that is treated differently between the two licenses.
The only way I think it would help would be if we could entirely kill a patent application. Just fixing one only makes it more powerful.
Bruce
Bruce is absolutely correct. This process is designed to weed out all the "obvious" software inventions that we complain about - the ones that are just a rehash of something old. If you believe that patents are inherently bad or if you believe that software should never be patented - even if it meets all the requirements of a patent (new, non-obvious) - then you should be aware that this process does make the patent stronger. OTOH, it should remove or narrow some software patents, leaving fewer to worry about and making those that survive less of a threat when we use known software procedures and their obvious variants. Those who want to do what is described in the patent, however, will have to worry more.
Choose your side: More software patents to worry about (but weaker on average), or fewer (but stronger) software patents.
I see. So instead of one large pool, there would be separate pools
by candidate. I dont see anything that stops a contributor from
claiming ( correctly or not ) that they donated to a candidate's campaign,
nor any natural check on negotiating deals beforehand ( "I'll donate
to your fund, here is what I want" ). Yes, it is mixed, but the
"wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more" factor is still there.
Putting it into the FEC does sound like a good idea, as it would put
a check attempting to make contributions illegally, as long as the
FEC distributed the money directly, not thru the candidates hands. There would have to be separate pools for each candidate. I want my money to improve the chances my candidate will get elected. I agree nothing stops a contributor from claiming to have contributed money, but was he telling the truth? The pol would never be sure, and if it's illegal to make that claim and/or others make the same claim... It's not intended to be a cure for all ills, but anonymous contribution would decrease the role that money plays in politics.
What I would be afraid of in your scheme would be back channel communications of "it was me that sent the check for $1020304.05, and here is the legislation that I want
enacted". My vision of how this "anonymous contribution" system would work is to have a central place for giving - perhaps the Federal Election Commission. They receive the funds and disburse all contributions in a lump sum. Your $1020304.05 contribution gets mixed with my $37.43 and John Q Public's $0.02.
BTW, can anyone tell me why I lose my CR/LFs when I post on Slashdot? They used to work fine, and they show up in the comment window, then disappear when I hit SUBMIT.
This is after two newlines.
This is after 3 newlines.
"Either remove corporate money, and limit personal donations,
or have one big pool of money that everyone can contribute to
( and all politicians draw from equally ) without any ability
to direct money to particular candidates."
I've always believed that we should prohibit the buying of influence, but allow people to support candidates they believe will govern well. The question is how to separate the two, and the answer has always seemed simple to me - we should allow only anonymous contributions. Give to anyone you want - but don't expect anything in return other than the election of your candidate and good government applied equally to all the people. Why not just make it illegal to disclose political contributions? No special favors for big contributors, no invitations to the White House, no special access to the policy makers.
The RSA idea itself was the hard part. In the hard disk example, the design of the spinning disk was the "hard part." All he had to do after thinking up the new design was just buy a motor, disk and an electromagnet. The new disk works because of physics, "physics" isn't any more real than mathematics. If we let him patent a hard disk, think of all the people who won't be allowed to build hard disks.
Or how about a new way of chlorinating a pool with tobacco leaves. Perhaps it's less expensive, safer for the environment, cures warts when you swim in it and keeps all the tobacco farms on their family farms. Tobacco exists in nature, and has fallen into ponds before. Tobacco leaves would have chlorinated the pond and cured warts even if humanity didn't know it would do that. What's so new about this? It's just the natural result of chemistry - nothing new here. The only thing the inventor did was add this valuable tidbit of knowledge to humanity's knowledge storehouse.
Bottom line, the "hard part" is always the mental part.
I have no problem with the argument that we shouldn't allow any patents, but I just don't buy the common argument here that software is mental like math, while other things that get patented are real like beer. (Speaking of which..... time for a beer!)
Slashdot Mirror
Simply changing BSD code wouldn't remove the BSD license. I agree that changing the BSD code (producing a derivative work) does not remove the BSD license (from the original code). If someone copies only portions of your work that can be traced to the original BSD code, then they aren't infringing any rights you may have in the changed work. It's just like incorporating public domain work in your own code - anyone copying the PD parts is not copying your work, even if they got it from your work. To prove copyright infringement, you would have to prove they copied something that you have rights in. BSD works the same way.
... all the BSD files you started with, even if you modified them will have to have a BSD license on them. The GPL has this type of requirement in the license. You can't use the starting code unless you agree to grant rights in your parts of the new copyrighted work. The BSD does not have that type of requirement. The BSD license doesn't allow for the license to be removed. It isn't being removed from the part of the work it applies to, it's just not being expanded to the new parts that it does not apply to. That's the fundamental difference between the GPL and BSD. The GPL requires you to give up certain rights in your own work. It's exactly like using PD material. If you use PD material in code you write, you don't give up your rights in your part of the code (it doesn't become PD), and the PD material does not suddenly become copyrighted by you even though you used it.Similarly, BSD licensed work remains BSD protected/licensed even when you use it, while your part of the work is your work and is protected by copyright. You could 1) keep your work proprietary, 2) license it BSD, or 3) license it GPL. If the work started as GPL options 1 and 2 would be prohibited by the license that let you use it to start with, but the BSD license does not require that.
Case 1 (you have no copyright claim to anything in the work): There is nothing that prohibits you from adding GPL license terms to the BSD terms, but if someone violates the GPL terms, they are not infringing your copyright, so you have no (copy) rights that you can enforce against them.
Case 2 (you have added some copyrightable elements to the original work): Now if you add GPL terms to the BSD license terms you have some rights that you can enforce. Anyone who violates the GPL terms would be liable to you for copyright infringement.
Judge Posner has given a lecture in Second Life. I doubt that any other jurist has ever lectured there.
If you then go telling the world that you did this then, yeah, expect the copyright holder to use the power the law has given him.
I don't know why you're trying to make an incredulous argument.. copyright is by nature nonsensical.
I agree that the coupon is probably copyrightable. I agree that if a license said an individual person can only print it once, then printing it twice is probably copyright infringement, but in this case, it appears that there was no such license. Other posts have said they relied on the software to restrict multiple printings, so that the copyright license is implied, and may be implied to mean that you can only print it once per computer, or once per each time you reinstall the OS or once per virtual machine session, or once per each time you clean your registry and delete all the junk that 3rd parties put on it to track what you do and where you go and restrict use of your own computer. It would clearly have been copyright infringement for him to photocopy the first printed coupon, but that's not what he did. If what he did violated the DMCA, then reinstalling the OS after a crash and printing another coupon would also be a DMCA violation.
the website owner typically gives you the right to copy when he makes it available. Of course, he needs to have the right to let you make the copy, which is no problem if he's the copyright owner. In the case of the GPL, however, he's not. A downloader can only get the right to make the downloaded copy directly from the GPL.
This is incorrect. The copyright holder can allow someone else to distribute the software.
I agree with "The copyright holder can allow someone else to distribute the software." I don't see why you think that conflicts with my statement above. The GPL is prepared by the copyright owner and clearly allows others to distribute.
Time for thought experiment #2:
I like thought experiments!
Here's the file again: ...
I am the copyright holder of that file. (Seriously, I am.) I hereby grant you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to distribute the software on a website of your choosing. (No, I'm not kidding. Go right ahead.) You may not apply any additional terms to the software when you offer it for download.
Good so far - now you have granted me a written license to distribute by means of a website. Although you didn't specifically say it, I think most would agree that in order to implement that license, it includes the right necessary for downloaders to make and use a copy downloaded from my website.
Ok, let's follow this through. Visitor comes to your site. The file is available for download because you have the rights to make it available for download. However, there is no license in the file, near the file, or referencing the file. The visitor downloads the file.
Question: Is the visitor now in violation of copyright law?
My answer: "No." You granted the specific right for me to distribute by way of website and included no requirement that I have my downloaders agree to any license.
I would say the GPL is clearly a different situation: 1) It does not say I can distribute by website, and leave silent the right for downloaders to copy 2) Because it is not silent on the right for downloaders to copy, but explicitly gives downloaders the right to copy, provided they agree to the GPL, there is no need to assume that the copyright owner granted an implied license for downloaders to copy, and 3) the GPL specifically requires that as a distributor, you impose the GPL on others who wish to exercise any of the three rights of copy, modify or distribute.
Innocent infringement was the term I was looking for. And the penalties aren't reduced for the situation. According to the letter of copyright law, the penalties are $750-$30,000 and increase if the infringement can be shown to be "willing" infringement.
You mean "willful" infringement, not "willing," but I follow you.
The specific term "innocent infringement" is not used in copyright law save for a special exception for semiconductor products (Title 17 Section 907) which mentions "innocent purchaser".
The term is widely used to refer to someone who didn't know they were engaged in coyright infringement, usually because the copyrighted work had no copyright notice. The US law previously required such a notice, but the rest of the world objected to the requirement of a notice, so it was removed as a requirement in the US and made optional.
The US copyright Office says: "Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected." and "use of a notice on such a work will defeat a claim of innocent infringement" Link:http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
So technically you are correct about it still being a crime. Practically, it's not so cut and dry. This is an area where the letter and the implementation of law tend to diverge. Take this example:
My father-in-law brought me a computer game from Russia when he came to visit us. The game was a localized ver
I also agreed the question of who makes a "copy" when you download is a closer question, so I made it simple, citing the case of making a second personal copy for your second computer, and you agreed that the GPL license was required for that personal/user situation.
You then returned to the issue of whether downloading is copying, so I gave the example of illegal downloading. You are violating copyright law when you illegally download, and the reason you are violating copyright law is because the act of downloading involves making a copy. You responded to that scenario by calling it a "strawman" argument and ignoring it.
I believe the law is clear - a person who downloads a file is making a copy and needs authorization to make that copy. The GPL clearly gives a downloader that authority. If you want to argue that the downloader does not need any authority to download, fine, I can't convince you otherwise. It doesn't really affect the underlying point that the GPL grants three types of rights - copying, modifying and distributing, and you need to agree to the GPL when you want to exercise any of those rights. You do NOT need the GPL to become a legal owner. I agree. Did you think I didn't? We were discussing whether downloading is making a copy, not whether you need to agree to the GPL to become an owner. I can't make this any simpler. If it's not sinking in, then I'm afraid I cannot help you. Do you understand where we disagree? It's on the simple question of whether downloading involves making a copy. I think the law is clear that it does. If illegal downloading did not involve making a copy, then it wouldn't be illegal. If you have some evidence that downloading does not involve the downloader making a copy, then I'll be happy to consider it and acknowledge I was wrong if I'm convinced. I agree it's a closer case and reasonable people might differ. Perhaps the sender could be considered the party making the copy. It wouldn't make any difference to the point that I made - the GPL applies when you want to make a copy, make changes or distribute. If you manage to understand that part of it, we'll go on to seeing if we can clear up your confusion on modifications. I don't think I have any confusion on the application of the GPL to modification. You didn't address the points I made, but I'm still willing to discuss it. You've agreed that the GPL applies to non-distribution when you want to make a second personal copy for your laptop. It also applies when you want to make a second modified copy (a "derivative work"). The GPL applies to the modified copy for the same reason it did to the unmodified copy. I scarcely see how you can accept one and not the other.
For the umpteenth time, the law explicitly provides for certain forms of copying. Your previous examples of loading a copy on the hard drive and RAM (which is what I was responding to)
And as we discussed, the law only applies when you are already "the owner of a copy." If you don't own the copy, then the law does not apply, but the GPL would authorize this. The GPL gives you the bootstrap to make the first "owned" copy that lets you make the RAM/HD additional copies. We agree that if someone else makes the first copy and distributes it to you, then you don't need the GPL. But if you have to make it yourself, then you need to agree to the GPL to make that bootstrap copy, and if you refuse to agree to the terms of the GPL, then the RAM/HD copies are not legal copies. This isn't all that complex - it's just standard copyright law.
[Quoting Section 117]Read it, reread it, and read it again until it makes sense.
I'll respectfully ask you to do the same. You must have a legally owned copy for this to apply. If you don't, the RAM and HD copies are not legal. If you make a copy of a GPL program, but refuse to agree to the GPL, then the first copy is unlawful, which makes the subsequent RAM and HD copies unlawful as well. They go together as a package.
If Bob used P2P or an illegal FTP site to download an unauthorized copy of software do you think that what Bob did was legal because he did not engage in "copying"?
Sir, this is a dictionary perfect example of a "strawman argument". I would request that you cease such nonsensical arguments immediately, and please pay attention to what is actually being said.
With respect, why do you think it is a strawman argument? Isn't part of this discussion about whether downloading requires authorization from the GPL? Aren't we in agreement that a user who wishes to copy a GPL program to his laptop needs to agree to the terms of the GPL? So isn't it relevant whether "downloading" constitutes "copying" under the copyright law?
I'll be honest with you, you're not making any sense at all. If you agree with these things, then why continue to invent scenarios for the GPL to kick in in which the GPL does NOT kick in?
I keep seeing posts that say the GPL only applies to distribution. It's simply not true. It's true that the terms of the GPL are most restrictive as they apply to distribution, but the license is not limited to distribution. I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding that it covers copying and modification, and there are lots of non-distribution scenarios that a user might run into. Making a copy for your laptop and downloading a copy are not invented scenarios. They are common.
I can't tell if you agree the GPL is required to modify the software (it is).
I was actually quite clear on the circumstances regarding modification:
Ownership of a copyrighted work grants no right to make a derivative work. It's a basic tenet of copyright law.
To add to that, any modifications you do that you don't share are effectively a no-op. Since no one ever sees them, there is no way for the terms of the GPL to apply.
That's like saying if no one finds out I've downloaded a copyrighted movie, I haven't infringed the copyright. You either have a license to make the derivative work or you don't. The GPL grants you the license, so why are you objecting to what it already gives you?
In standard copyright parlance, modification of a computer program is an act of creating a derivative work. Now the copyright laws specifically state in Section 103 that only the owner of a copyright can prepare a derivative work. However, Section 107 explicitly curbs those rights per "fair
I don't disagree with anything you posted, except that you start from the assumption that the user has a legal copy of a copyrighted program, while I start from the point before he has such a copy: "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make [a copy]." My post simply said that the GPL gives a user the right to make a copy and become "the owner of a copy" without infringing any rights of the copyright owner. Once you have made the legal copy you are then the owner and have the right to use it in the normal way. Without that legal first copy, the other copies are still infringements.
No, that's not correct. The distributor made a copy and gave it to you. This is comparable to purchasing a book or CD. You don't "copy" the book or CD when you acquire it. It's possible for either party (distributor or buyer or someone else)to make the copy during a distribution. That's why they are distinct actions. If you buy 1000 counterfeit CDs, and sell them, you violate the distribution right, even though you didn't copy the CDs and didn't violate the right of reproduction. When you download a program onto your hard drive, you make a copy. When you load it into RAM, you make a copy. The distributor made or otherwise obtained copies that he's providing you. This is what's known as the "first sale". No, the "first sale doctrine" means that a copyright owner can't control the resale of a copyrighted work. Once he's paid by the first buyer, that's all he gets. It doesn't relate to copying. If a user doesn't need to copy, then I agree he's not bound by the GPL, but it's pretty unusual to not need to make any copies. The GPL only kicks in when you make a non-backup copy of the copy you received. (Standard copyright law makes it legal for you to make backup copies.) Agreed, but most court decisions have ruled that a downloader makes a copy and the process of loading into RAM involves making a copy, so a user will typically make one or more copies. This is actually how the GPL is designed. You receive a copy from someone who has the rights to distribute the software. It could be the author, or a GPL licensee. You now are completely free to use the software as you choose with no restrictions save for those placed upon you by copyright law. I disagree. Copyright law says you can't make copies without permission of the copyright owner. The GPL give you that permission. It's the GPL that lets the user make effective use of software, not copyright law. Copyright law says that you can't make a copy and give it to a friend because only the owner of the software has the "right" to "copy". However, the owner can delegate that right per his or her choosing. Agreed The GPL provides a unilateral offer to become a distributor. It does more than that. Look at 17 USC 106 (yes, I'm in the U.S., but similar laws apply around the world) which lists the exclusive rights a copyright owner has. The first is the right to reproduce (copy). The second is the right to change (derivative work), the third is the right to distribute. The GPL grants rights under all three and repeatedly refers to the right to make copies, which is a right the user needs. It's just about the only right he really needs, but he does need it and he gets it only from the GPL. Without the GPL, he'd be violating the copyright whenever he made a copy. If they decide to distribute what they have done, that is when the restrictions under the GPL kick in, not one minute before. Clearly we disagree. The GPL kicks in when you make a copy. Without the GPL you can't make a copy (right 1) you can't make changes (right 2) and you can't distribute (right 3). Of course, since the GPL is so open with respect to use, I can see why you might think it doesn't apply, but legally it's needed for the GPL to work inside the context of copyright law.
Of course, it's true that most of the obligations of the GPL relate to distribution restrictions, not restrictions on use, but the user is clearly bound by the license since it is the GPL that gives the user his right to copy and change the code.
As for the time of the choice between GPLv3 vs GPLv2, theoretically, the user should probably choose at the time he exercises any right under the license, i.e. when he copies the code or changes it. As a practical matter, however, he would need to choose only when he wants to do something that is treated differently between the two licenses.
Bruce
Bruce is absolutely correct. This process is designed to weed out all the "obvious" software inventions that we complain about - the ones that are just a rehash of something old. If you believe that patents are inherently bad or if you believe that software should never be patented - even if it meets all the requirements of a patent (new, non-obvious) - then you should be aware that this process does make the patent stronger. OTOH, it should remove or narrow some software patents, leaving fewer to worry about and making those that survive less of a threat when we use known software procedures and their obvious variants. Those who want to do what is described in the patent, however, will have to worry more.Choose your side: More software patents to worry about (but weaker on average), or fewer (but stronger) software patents.
BTW, can anyone tell me why I lose my CR/LFs when I post on Slashdot? They used to work fine, and they show up in the comment window, then disappear when I hit SUBMIT. This is after two newlines. This is after 3 newlines.
"Either remove corporate money, and limit personal donations, or have one big pool of money that everyone can contribute to ( and all politicians draw from equally ) without any ability to direct money to particular candidates." I've always believed that we should prohibit the buying of influence, but allow people to support candidates they believe will govern well. The question is how to separate the two, and the answer has always seemed simple to me - we should allow only anonymous contributions. Give to anyone you want - but don't expect anything in return other than the election of your candidate and good government applied equally to all the people. Why not just make it illegal to disclose political contributions? No special favors for big contributors, no invitations to the White House, no special access to the policy makers.