No Disney has a case over Redbox on multiple fronts not just the rental activity. It's far easier to ignore for you them.
The courts, of course, will decide which of us is correct.
And you seem to on ignore that for this particular case, first sale doctrine does not apply to digital copies.
I don't know who you think I'm a sock puppet for, but I've not argued first-sale doctrin at all in this discussion. In fact, I've specifically stated that it doesn't matter whether it applies or not; it is irrelevant.
Redbox isn't distributing because you redeem the copy at Movies Anywhere but you forgot that Redbox is still selling the copy. Or did not think that part of distribution is selling.
Redbox is selling a fact, not a copy of a movie. That fact can be sued to obtain a copy of a movie and, if we were not talking about a legal matter, I would agree, there's no distinction. However, our legal system thrives on those distinctions, which is why I keep driving it home.
My point is the courts have already said you're wrong. But you refuse to acknowledge it.
In the "one case" I keep referring to? Re-read the conversation; I've referred to a handful. None of them in this thread, of course.
I'm not going to do all your homework but you can start here. [comodo.com]
And, of course, you link to a completely unrelated document detailing one company's policy regarding issuing certificates. That page does link to a couple of standards documents (ratified RFCs), but neither of them support your position. Of course, I point this out, hoping that you simply linked the wrong URL and still might educate me further on this issue. In the end, I'm disappointed, of course.
The.dev TLD is not available. [...] It is no different than if you try to tie a.com address to a local address.
You go on about.dev although I've not mentioned.dev once at this point. You also continue limiting to.dev and.com and make yet another incorrect statement regarding tying (pointing) a domain to a local address. Still waiting on the standards document that disallows this.
You just confirmed that.dev isn't available and so you can't use it.
I never claimed otherwise; but you confirmed, there, that you thought I had. How, exactly? Since you read and understand perfectly what people write (even if they're not writing what they think they are), as you imply in the post you just wrote, surely you noticed that I hadn't mentioned.dev at all until just then. Clearly, I wasn't arguing anything relating to.dev.
No, I'm saying you still don't grasp what is going on. [...] For domains you own, so a VERY limited subset of.com, you can do that [...] I think you get that and we just got our signals crossed.
I don't grasp what is going on? Oh, no, I've gotten that you're a Slashdot troll since way before this particular conversation started. You've missed that I enjoy baiting the trolls here, it keeps me sharp. You also just changed your position yet again; remember when you said "you should not use.com for internal machines", "The.com and.dev TLDs are controlled by ICANN, who issues them and ties them to a public IP address", "All ICANN assigned TILes are for public hostnames, and should never resolve to hosts in the private IP range", and "It is no different than if you try to tie a.com address to a local address"? Now you're admitting that all of those statements are false and expecting me to carry on as though you never said them and I was the one who was wrong this whole time? No. Admit you were wrong, it's a learning experience and it's good for you. I do it all the time (though, less and less on Slashdot, lately); it's actually the first step in correcting an incorrect understanding of a subject. You can't very well let go of incorrect beliefs, even if you acknowledge the beliefs someone else expounds are in fact correct, if you can't admit that your beliefs are incorrect. You've just contradicted everything else you've said to this point so, clearly, one set of beliefs you are expressing is incorrect. Decide which it is and admit it.
And of course I get it, it's what I've been saying this whole time. Thus, I didn't get anything crossed; but you, very clearly, did.
As for the standards, see RFC 1035: DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIFICATION. Specifically, note the complete lack of restriction on where a domain may be used, whether or not it is ICANN-managed and whether or not you own it. Read all 25 updates if you want to be extra sure, and go ahead and read all the updates to those, and so on, and so forth.
If I'm missing something, well, I've been asking you to point it out for the last 5 posts. 6 if you count this one. Which ratified RFC describes the standard you were previously claiming exists?
(2/3) Slashdot doesn't like posts with a lot of quotes, so I have to break this up more than I thought I would...
You are a master communicator and there is no way anyone could have interpreted your statement any other way than how you meant it even though that's not how you said it.
I wouldn't quite say I'm a master but yes, I've studied both inter- and intra-personal communication, as well as human psychology. I know how to recognize a clearly-made point, even when I don't necessarily agree with or understand the point. I also (quite often, mind you -- as, again, I'm certainly no master) can recognize when, in retrospect, perhaps I was not so clear; this, my friend, is not one of those instances. You, however, have changed your position several times throughout this debate. To wit, direct quotes from each of your posts in this discussion, in order and with commentary:
Just as you should not use.com for internal machines you should not use.dev or you are violating standards.
You originally claim (incorrectly) that.com should not be used internally; in truth, domains you don't own (regardless of TLD) should not be used; domains you do own are fair game.
The.com and.dev TLDs are controlled by ICANN, who issues them and ties them to a public IP address.
You still limit the discussion to.com and.dev (something you later accused me of doing) and make an incorrect statement about tying to public IP addresses.
All ICANN assigned TILes are for public hostnames, and should never resolve to hosts in the private IP range.
I'll forgive the typo, as we all make them; we're human, after all. However, I cannot forgive the incorrectness of this statement, which is why I asked you to back it up by linking to the standard you claim to be referencing. I asked for this because I've never seen such a standard; because one does not exist. I was asking to be proven wrong, here, and would have accepted that I was wrong if you had done so; hell, if you do so now I'll still accept it. I won't hold my breath, though; I've been doing this for over two decades, I'm more than passingly familiar with the standards at play.
Okay, you really want to do this? Alright, then, here we go...
OK buddy. You clearly said. com for domains you own, even though you didn't say "for domains you own"
What part of "provided your internal hostnames don't overlap with your public hostnames" was unclear? The only way you get public hostnames on a domain is if you own it, right? Right.
Further, you claim:
The.com and.dev TLDs are controlled by ICANN, who issues them and ties them to a public IP address.
That's just flat-out wrong. DNS, which ICANN has nothing at all to do with, is what "ties [a domain] to a public [or private] IP address", or to none at all, as you can simply register a domain and never configure NS records for it. And it's more like pointing than tying; you can change your NS records to point to a different set of DNS servers -- and it's certainly not to a (single) IP address, either; you can have any number of hosts under a single domain, each of which may have its own IP, or even multiple IPs per host. I own, let's just say more than a handful of domains, and several have no NS records whatsoever; they are not tied to any IP address, by ICANN or by anyone else; they will be, when the projects they were bought for are ready to start using them, but, then, they'll be pointed (not tied) to dozens of IP addresses, possibly hundreds or thousands for some.
My very next comment further clarified that I was talking about domains you own:
If your internal hostnames don't overlap with any public hostnames, you are not violating the standard. If you own the domain in question, you can guarantee that. What's the problem? Don't put *.dev.yourdomain.com in public END and you're golden.
So, I made it clear in my first comment; I made it absolutely clear in my second... yet, you didn't realize that's what I was talking about until 12 comments in? So you're claim, then, is that you can't follow a conversation? Sorry, I'm not buying that. Here's why:
Your reply to my second comment was:
That is not correct. All ICANN assigned TILes are for public hostnames, and should never resolve to hosts in the private IP range. You violate the standard at your own peril.
That, right there, makes it very clear to me that you understand that I am talking about domains that you own or, at the very least, domains other than.dev (such as.com); yet, a handful of posts later, you're still on about.dev as though that's what I was talking about. It's also wrong; you can use a registered domain internally and, in fact, as you so aptly pointed out, if you want to use a widely trusted certificate internally, you must use a registered domain (which you own), or nobody in the default trust group of the major browsers will sign it.
Oh, wait, maybe you can't follow a conversation. Just remember, this is Slashdot and there is a text record of hte conversation just above the post you're reading, then maybe you won't lose these details anymore.
and in that case it isn't limited to.com but you were specific about.com
You specifically said.com, actually. I did mention.com in my first post, because it's the goalpost you propped up, but I later (in my very next post) said:
If you own the domain in question, you can guarantee that.
Where do I limit it to.com? Of course, 5 posts later you think I'm talking about.dev again (but remember, you literally, just above this very post that you are reading right now, said I limited it to.com):
So, which is it? I don't get what is going or, or we got our signals crossed? Because I was responding to your remark:
Just as you should not use.com for internal machines you should not use.dev or you are violating standards.
That is why I mentioned.com... because you claimed it was a violation of standards. The whole while, all I was trying to do was point out that it is fine to use a domain you own. Look at it another way: it is fine cor Google to use.dev, because they own it. Right?
The only one here who got anything crossed is you. I read back through our conversation and i made it pretty clear from the start that I was talking about domains you own.
Oh, you can, and you have. There's simply no point in arguing further. Ultimately, the courts will decide which of us is right, assuming that either of us are.
What world do you live in?
One where it becomes increasingly pointless to restate the same opinion when neither you nor the person you keep restating it to are in any position to decide whether either of you are actually right. We've both said our parts, now we would both be better served by kicking back with a bag of popcorn and watching the show to find out who's right. There really and truly is nothing more either of us can add to this.
My point is that you've asserted that this true. I contest that it is true.
Indeed, and neither of us are in a position to prove the other wrong, ergo it is futile to attempt to do so. We must wait for the courts to decide.
Except in the exact facts of this case, Redbox did not obtain a valid copy from Disney. Redbox appears to buy combo sets from retail, split them up, and sell them individually. Such a move requires a license or agreement.
Then Disney has a case against Redbox over the rental activity, as that is explicitly forbidden by the terms of the shrink-wrap license. Assuming, of course, that the license holds up in court; it may or it may not. That sure is a beautiful strawman you've constructed, there, but it's entirely irrelevant because that's not what Disney is suing over.
If you think about it, can Target or Walmart or Amazon can split a physical box set into multiple discs to re-sell without permission of the copyright owner? No. Can I as a private individual? Probably not but Disney isn't going to go after me if I sell the DVD I don't use to a friend.
I don't believe either of those scenarios has been tried in court. That said, yes, you can surely resell, in part or in whole, anything you've bought. It's called the first-sale doctrine and you've made it abundantly clear in this thread that you're quite aware of it.
My point is that Redbox was never authorized to do this kind of digital distribution and all articles say that.
My point is that Redbox isn't the one doing the digital distribution, Movies Anywhere (who is authorized) is. So, while your point is absolutely correct, it's also irrelevant because Redbox isn't doing the thing you're pointing out that they're not allowed to do.
Movies Anywhere has the support and backing of the studios including Disney to do this. Again, Redbox did not.
As stated above, that's all well and good because Movies Anywhere is the one distributing the digital copies of the movie, Redbox is not.
We can keep going back and forth, restating the same facts to support the same opinions, or we can wait for the courts to sort it out. I'm buying a bottle of cognac tonight, it can go to whoever the courts determine to be right if we drop this until a decision has been made, or I can enjoy the bottle myself regardless. Your call.
You are correct and the appeal was heard by the Seventh Circuit court. Thank you for pointing out my compound errors; further proof that I should not post that early in the morning.
However, the Circuit Court's decision is still relevant here, even if for different reasons than I originally stated. The decision upholds Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., a Supreme Court decision wherein it was determined that facts, in and of themselves, are not protected by copyright. The code itself is a fact; the paper it is printed on is (arguably) a protected work and distributing a copy of that paper may be a violation of copyright, but the code itself is not protected.
Holy fucking shit that's actually the first 4 sets from one of my Windows 7 Ultimate license keys. I thought it looked familiar, so I dug up the install disc (obtained at the Win7 launch event in Cleveland) and verified.
That might explain why I have to call to activate every time I install it.
The digital copy is not what's being sold, the code (which is one-time-use) is. Not even the slip of paper the code is on (first-sale doctrine, and any exceptions to that, would apply) or a copy of that slip (copyright law would apply), but a fact (the code) which is not protected by copyright. They're in the clear under US law, as well; it's just a matter of them having better lawyers than Disney or getting a judge with some common sense.
That said, to actually redeem the digital copy, one needs to agree to Disney's license.
And, in agreeing to that license, they agree not to distribute the code. Of course, that's not relevant as the code won't work a second time; but the buyer's agreement to the license has no bearing on Redbox. In other words, you're even more right than your words suggest.;)
Redbox is almost certainly aware that it won't be legal for their customers to redeem those digital copies without also owning a physical copy, since the fine print in these sorts of licenses almost always requires that the person also owns a physical copy.
3. USAGE RULES
a. Adding Movies Anywhere Entitlements. An "Entitlement" is a legitimately acquired license to stream or download a specific Movies Anywhere movie title and its resolution (e.g., Standard Definition or High Definition). Your "My Movies Collection" is made up of Content for which you have by license obtained Entitlements in your Movies Anywhere locker. As a Movies Anywhere Member, you may fill your My Movies Collection with Movies Anywhere-eligible movies based on your Entitlements. Your Entitlements will remain in your My Movies Collection indefinitely, subject to the ongoing validity of your Entitlements and these Movies Anywhere Terms of Use.
Now, I'm not going to paste the full document, but I will link to it. Note that they do not define "legitimately acquired license". Arguable, that's just a license you paid for or were gifted; your actions can be legitimate even if the actions of the person transferring the license to you are not.
As such, those codes are worthless without the physical copy.
They're only worthless if Movies Anywhere refuses to honor them. If Redbox sells the same code twice, well, yes, it would be worthless to the second person to attempt to redeem it.
Redbox is apparently selling the codes as if they are a standalone means to purchase a digital copy, even though they can't be used that way.
When Movies Anywhere accepts the code, that indicates that it, in fact, can be used that way. Since Movies Anywhere is Diseny's authorized digital distribution partner, the copies they make and distribute are explicitly authorized.
In doing so, there's an argument to be made that they're either engaging in fraud by portraying the product as something other than it is
You may have an argument, there. It will be interesting to see if Disney raises that point, but they did not in their original complaint.
or else that they're inducing others to engage in illegal behavior by selling an item that they have every reason to believe will be used illicitly.
Movies Anywhere's servers act to authorize the (one time) use of those codes. If the server accepts it, it's authorized, ergo not illicit; I would be amazed to learn that Movies Anywhere's servers will let you sit there and keep entering codes until you guess one right -- if they don't allow that, they've implicitly defined unauthorized (illicit) use of their systems and it can be reasonably expected that acceptance of a code indicates that code to be valid. They also have a mechanism in place (see link above) to revoke already-redeemed codes so, in the event of an erroneous acceptance, they can correct the issue at a later date.
I think they won't be disabling any redeemed codes sold by Redbox, though; but they may disable codes they themselves buy as part of their efforts to thwart this activity.
Yes, the first-sale doctrine means that Disney exhausted their rights to the items included in the purchase at the time of sale, but the digital copy wasn't included in the purchase. The code to redeem it was. And while it's
In this particular case, this is about a code for a unique download of a movie not the facts themselves. Unless you can't acknowledge that distinction then you can twist the logic as much as you want.
Again, we'll have to let the court rule on this. Argue with the judge afterward, not me beforehand. What you're missing (or willfully ignoring) is that the code itself is a fact, not a copyrighted work. That it can later be used (once and only once, mind you) to obtain a copyrighted work is purely coincidental; the copy that is made and distributed as a result of entering that code is made and distributed by Disney's digital distribution partner who, ostensibly, is authorized to do so upon receipt of a valid code.
You're going to blow a gasket.
You always seem to think I'm over here seething as I reply to you. No, I'm over he laughing. If anything, I'm gonna do what Cartman did and blow a funny fuse.
My point is that publishing a fact does not make stealing more or less illegal according to other laws.
There, we agree. And when Disney's authorized partner makes and distributes a copy of the movie when a valid code (which only works once, mind you) is entered, nothing has been stolen.
Publishing a code does not negate any copyright laws in question.
We agree, there, as well. Of course, it doesn't make Disney's authorized distribution partner any less authorized, either.
So you're unwilling to admit that the code being distributed is for one copyrighted movie?
Indeed, one copy from an authorized source.
And exactly one copy of a movie if the digital copyright system Disney employs works.
Actually, Movies Anywhere enforces this by only accepting a given code once.
How about, since the copy is made and distributed by Disney's digital distribution partner, the copy is authorized. That good enough for you? They can very well not accept the code; but, when they do accept it, they're authorized to provide a copy of the movie. Period.
It is questionable whether the first-sale doctrine applies here, which makes that the weaker of the possible arguments to be made in defense of Redbox. While it is my opinion that the first-sale doctrine does apply (because the shrink-wrap license does not -- also on my opinion), the court may opine differently. However, it was established in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. that facts, in and of themselves, are not protected works. Since Redbox is distributing facts (the download codes) and not copyrighted works (the slips of paper, or copies thereof), they're in the clear.
Were I their attorney, I would open with that defense, then pile your argument on top of it just to get a chuckle out of them attempting to tear it down (should they even attempt to).
There's also a solid legal argument on licensing alone. Years ago, Microsoft won plenty of lawsuits against businesses & VARs who installed Windows using Enterprise site-licensed installation codes (using legit, purchased codes... but in a way not allowed by the license).
The terms of the license were known, negotiated, and agreed upon prior to the purchase and, thus, were enforceable. Not so much here; especially given that the code will only work once.
If Redbox has a legal leg to stand on, it metaphorically has osteoporosis and polio.
If Redbox were selling the slip of paper with the download code printed on it, they would be in violation of the terms of the license (assuming it's enforceable, which is a tenuous assumption to begin with). If Redbox were selling a copy of the slip of paper with the download code printed on it, they would be in violation of copyright. Redbox is selling the code itself, which is a fact and thus not protected by copyright. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
The first-sale doctrine is in no way relevant to my argument. They're not selling the paper the code is written on, to which the first-sale doctrine would apply; they're not selling a copy of the paper the code is written on, to which copyright would apply; they're selling the code, itself, which is a fact and thus not protected by copyright. Don't waste your time arguing with me, though; read the ruling after Disney loses.
Your entire point was that the wording and terms are not present at the time of sale. If the terms were present at the time that Redbox buys a movie from Disney to be re-sold, then that destroys your point.
On the slip... in the box... That constitutes them being unavailable at the time of purchase, as you're not allowed to see them until after.
And what case is that?
Linked elsewhere in the discussion. But, since I know you'll just call that a lie, here: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg.
You mean the exact cases that specifically say that Redbox cannot do what they did.
No, I mean the actual complaint Disney filed with the court. It's linked (by another user) elsewhere in this discussion, I suggest you read it. Redbox is not distributing unauthorized copies of protected works. Period.
At any rate, it's irrelevant as the codes are facts and facts aren't protected works.
Well that's pure twisted logic. The code allows for downloading of a digital copy.
Indeed, it does allow for downloading of a digital copy; a digital copy made and distributed by Disney's distribution partner, who has every right to make and distribute that copy. There are rulings supporting the fact that a fact is not protected by copyright, a fact which you are more than welcome to copy all you want and post everywhere you can once you realize it's true. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
The case centered on two well-established principles in United States copyright law: That facts are not copyrightable, but that compilations of facts can be.
"There is an undeniable tension between these two propositions," Justice O'Connor wrote in her decision. "Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data -- i.e. wholly factual information not accompanied by any original expression. On what basis may one claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The sine qua non of copyright is originality."
The ruling is pretty cut and dry.
That's like saying that your PIN is a fact. Me using it to withdraw money from your bank account isn't really "stealing".
Speaking of pure twisted logic... No. My PIN is a fact and, should you guess it, it's not protected by copyright and I have no legal recourse should to go around giving it to everyone under the sun. Using it to take money out of my account, however, is theft, which has nothing to do with whether or not the damn number is protected by copyright. There are 10,000 possible 4 digit ATM PINs, minus PINs that individual banks choose to disallow (like 1234, 0000, 1111, etc...) and way more than 10,000 people with ATM cards capable of withdrawing money; surely, someone else has and uses my PIN on a regular basis.
Further, to use my PIN to access my account, you must also have my ATM card, or at least a copy of it. Now you have a unique collection of facts, which is protected, as explained in the ruling above.
The fact of the matter are copyright rulings are against what Redbox is doing. See Capitol v ReDigi.
ReDigi was distributing copies of digital media. That is, they were copying and distributing copyrighted works. That's infringement. It's also different than what Redbox is doing.
Because you don't own whatever domain you're using.
If they have done so in the past they will revoke it.
And rightly so, as you don't own a.dev domain.
You CAN'T use.dev as an internal TLD legitimately.
I never said you could. I said you could use a domain that you own.
This is well known, was announced a long time ago, and it is the fault of any organization if they do so now.
Indeed it is.
This shit isn't complicated.
Indeed it is not.
It is no different than if you try to tie a.com address to a local address.
Almost. If you own the.com domain you're using, you're in the clear. The difference, of course, is that you can own a.com domain without being Google, which is a requirement for.dev.
If you do it your shit is broken and you can fix it or leave it broken and cry like a little girl that things work the way they are supposed to today instead of the way they used to before the change.
Actually, your shit's only broken if you use a domain someone else owns, or if you reuse public FQDNs for a domain you own on your private network. Even then, it's only broken if the end result is not what you intended; for example, if you want to display something different for those hostnames when accessed from your internal network, and that's the effect you achieve, you can hardly call it broken.
You still haven't pointed to any specification that disagrees with the above. What you have done, however, is made it very clear that you misunderstood what I wrote.
He's conflating copying and distribution. While copying for personal use (e.g. no distribution) is protected, so is distributing without making a copy; the part he's missing is that infringement requires both parts.
Not really surprising, as UnknowingFool has a history of not thinking through his replies to my posts before mashing that Submit button.
Slashdot Mirror
No Disney has a case over Redbox on multiple fronts not just the rental activity. It's far easier to ignore for you them.
The courts, of course, will decide which of us is correct.
And you seem to on ignore that for this particular case, first sale doctrine does not apply to digital copies.
I don't know who you think I'm a sock puppet for, but I've not argued first-sale doctrin at all in this discussion. In fact, I've specifically stated that it doesn't matter whether it applies or not; it is irrelevant.
Redbox isn't distributing because you redeem the copy at Movies Anywhere but you forgot that Redbox is still selling the copy. Or did not think that part of distribution is selling.
Redbox is selling a fact, not a copy of a movie. That fact can be sued to obtain a copy of a movie and, if we were not talking about a legal matter, I would agree, there's no distinction. However, our legal system thrives on those distinctions, which is why I keep driving it home.
My point is the courts have already said you're wrong. But you refuse to acknowledge it.
In the "one case" I keep referring to? Re-read the conversation; I've referred to a handful. None of them in this thread, of course.
I'm not going to do all your homework but you can start here. [comodo.com]
And, of course, you link to a completely unrelated document detailing one company's policy regarding issuing certificates. That page does link to a couple of standards documents (ratified RFCs), but neither of them support your position. Of course, I point this out, hoping that you simply linked the wrong URL and still might educate me further on this issue. In the end, I'm disappointed, of course.
The .dev TLD is not available. [...] It is no different than if you try to tie a .com address to a local address.
You go on about .dev although I've not mentioned .dev once at this point. You also continue limiting to .dev and .com and make yet another incorrect statement regarding tying (pointing) a domain to a local address. Still waiting on the standards document that disallows this.
You just confirmed that .dev isn't available and so you can't use it.
I never claimed otherwise; but you confirmed, there, that you thought I had. How, exactly? Since you read and understand perfectly what people write (even if they're not writing what they think they are), as you imply in the post you just wrote, surely you noticed that I hadn't mentioned .dev at all until just then. Clearly, I wasn't arguing anything relating to .dev.
No, I'm saying you still don't grasp what is going on. [...] For domains you own, so a VERY limited subset of .com, you can do that [...] I think you get that and we just got our signals crossed.
I don't grasp what is going on? Oh, no, I've gotten that you're a Slashdot troll since way before this particular conversation started. You've missed that I enjoy baiting the trolls here, it keeps me sharp. You also just changed your position yet again; remember when you said "you should not use .com for internal machines", "The .com and .dev TLDs are controlled by ICANN, who issues them and ties them to a public IP address", "All ICANN assigned TILes are for public hostnames, and should never resolve to hosts in the private IP range", and "It is no different than if you try to tie a .com address to a local address"? Now you're admitting that all of those statements are false and expecting me to carry on as though you never said them and I was the one who was wrong this whole time? No. Admit you were wrong, it's a learning experience and it's good for you. I do it all the time (though, less and less on Slashdot, lately); it's actually the first step in correcting an incorrect understanding of a subject. You can't very well let go of incorrect beliefs, even if you acknowledge the beliefs someone else expounds are in fact correct, if you can't admit that your beliefs are incorrect. You've just contradicted everything else you've said to this point so, clearly, one set of beliefs you are expressing is incorrect. Decide which it is and admit it.
And of course I get it, it's what I've been saying this whole time. Thus, I didn't get anything crossed; but you, very clearly, did.
As for the standards, see RFC 1035: DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIFICATION. Specifically, note the complete lack of restriction on where a domain may be used, whether or not it is ICANN-managed and whether or not you own it. Read all 25 updates if you want to be extra sure, and go ahead and read all the updates to those, and so on, and so forth.
If I'm missing something, well, I've been asking you to point it out for the last 5 posts. 6 if you count this one. Which ratified RFC describes the standard you were previously claiming exists?
You are a master communicator and there is no way anyone could have interpreted your statement any other way than how you meant it even though that's not how you said it.
I wouldn't quite say I'm a master but yes, I've studied both inter- and intra-personal communication, as well as human psychology. I know how to recognize a clearly-made point, even when I don't necessarily agree with or understand the point. I also (quite often, mind you -- as, again, I'm certainly no master) can recognize when, in retrospect, perhaps I was not so clear; this, my friend, is not one of those instances. You, however, have changed your position several times throughout this debate. To wit, direct quotes from each of your posts in this discussion, in order and with commentary:
Just as you should not use .com for internal machines you should not use .dev or you are violating standards.
You originally claim (incorrectly) that .com should not be used internally; in truth, domains you don't own (regardless of TLD) should not be used; domains you do own are fair game.
The .com and .dev TLDs are controlled by ICANN, who issues them and ties them to a public IP address.
You still limit the discussion to .com and .dev (something you later accused me of doing) and make an incorrect statement about tying to public IP addresses.
All ICANN assigned TILes are for public hostnames, and should never resolve to hosts in the private IP range.
I'll forgive the typo, as we all make them; we're human, after all. However, I cannot forgive the incorrectness of this statement, which is why I asked you to back it up by linking to the standard you claim to be referencing. I asked for this because I've never seen such a standard; because one does not exist. I was asking to be proven wrong, here, and would have accepted that I was wrong if you had done so; hell, if you do so now I'll still accept it. I won't hold my breath, though; I've been doing this for over two decades, I'm more than passingly familiar with the standards at play.
OK buddy. You clearly said. com for domains you own, even though you didn't say "for domains you own"
What part of "provided your internal hostnames don't overlap with your public hostnames" was unclear? The only way you get public hostnames on a domain is if you own it, right? Right.
Further, you claim:
The .com and .dev TLDs are controlled by ICANN, who issues them and ties them to a public IP address.
That's just flat-out wrong. DNS, which ICANN has nothing at all to do with, is what "ties [a domain] to a public [or private] IP address", or to none at all, as you can simply register a domain and never configure NS records for it. And it's more like pointing than tying; you can change your NS records to point to a different set of DNS servers -- and it's certainly not to a (single) IP address, either; you can have any number of hosts under a single domain, each of which may have its own IP, or even multiple IPs per host. I own, let's just say more than a handful of domains, and several have no NS records whatsoever; they are not tied to any IP address, by ICANN or by anyone else; they will be, when the projects they were bought for are ready to start using them, but, then, they'll be pointed (not tied) to dozens of IP addresses, possibly hundreds or thousands for some.
My very next comment further clarified that I was talking about domains you own:
If your internal hostnames don't overlap with any public hostnames, you are not violating the standard. If you own the domain in question, you can guarantee that. What's the problem? Don't put *.dev.yourdomain.com in public END and you're golden.
So, I made it clear in my first comment; I made it absolutely clear in my second... yet, you didn't realize that's what I was talking about until 12 comments in? So you're claim, then, is that you can't follow a conversation? Sorry, I'm not buying that. Here's why:
Your reply to my second comment was:
That is not correct. All ICANN assigned TILes are for public hostnames, and should never resolve to hosts in the private IP range. You violate the standard at your own peril.
That, right there, makes it very clear to me that you understand that I am talking about domains that you own or, at the very least, domains other than .dev (such as .com); yet, a handful of posts later, you're still on about .dev as though that's what I was talking about. It's also wrong; you can use a registered domain internally and, in fact, as you so aptly pointed out, if you want to use a widely trusted certificate internally, you must use a registered domain (which you own), or nobody in the default trust group of the major browsers will sign it.
Oh, wait, maybe you can't follow a conversation. Just remember, this is Slashdot and there is a text record of hte conversation just above the post you're reading, then maybe you won't lose these details anymore.
and in that case it isn't limited to .com but you were specific about .com
You specifically said .com, actually. I did mention .com in my first post, because it's the goalpost you propped up, but I later (in my very next post) said:
If you own the domain in question, you can guarantee that.
Where do I limit it to .com? Of course, 5 posts later you think I'm talking about .dev again (but remember, you literally, just above this very post that you are reading right now, said I limited it to .com):
Are you on drugs? The
Just as you should not use .com for internal machines you should not use .dev or you are violating standards.
That is why I mentioned .com... because you claimed it was a violation of standards. The whole while, all I was trying to do was point out that it is fine to use a domain you own. Look at it another way: it is fine cor Google to use .dev, because they own it. Right?
The only one here who got anything crossed is you. I read back through our conversation and i made it pretty clear from the start that I was talking about domains you own.
Nevermind, posted before I read your whole post... which is really freaking lazy of me. You are absolutely correct.
The scale for EMF is different than the scale for audio?
I'm putting a bottle of cognac on the line, here.
So I can't argue your opinion with mine?
Oh, you can, and you have. There's simply no point in arguing further. Ultimately, the courts will decide which of us is right, assuming that either of us are.
What world do you live in?
One where it becomes increasingly pointless to restate the same opinion when neither you nor the person you keep restating it to are in any position to decide whether either of you are actually right. We've both said our parts, now we would both be better served by kicking back with a bag of popcorn and watching the show to find out who's right. There really and truly is nothing more either of us can add to this.
My point is that you've asserted that this true. I contest that it is true.
Indeed, and neither of us are in a position to prove the other wrong, ergo it is futile to attempt to do so. We must wait for the courts to decide.
Except in the exact facts of this case, Redbox did not obtain a valid copy from Disney. Redbox appears to buy combo sets from retail, split them up, and sell them individually. Such a move requires a license or agreement.
Then Disney has a case against Redbox over the rental activity, as that is explicitly forbidden by the terms of the shrink-wrap license. Assuming, of course, that the license holds up in court; it may or it may not. That sure is a beautiful strawman you've constructed, there, but it's entirely irrelevant because that's not what Disney is suing over.
If you think about it, can Target or Walmart or Amazon can split a physical box set into multiple discs to re-sell without permission of the copyright owner? No. Can I as a private individual? Probably not but Disney isn't going to go after me if I sell the DVD I don't use to a friend.
I don't believe either of those scenarios has been tried in court. That said, yes, you can surely resell, in part or in whole, anything you've bought. It's called the first-sale doctrine and you've made it abundantly clear in this thread that you're quite aware of it.
My point is that Redbox was never authorized to do this kind of digital distribution and all articles say that.
My point is that Redbox isn't the one doing the digital distribution, Movies Anywhere (who is authorized) is. So, while your point is absolutely correct, it's also irrelevant because Redbox isn't doing the thing you're pointing out that they're not allowed to do.
Movies Anywhere has the support and backing of the studios including Disney to do this. Again, Redbox did not.
As stated above, that's all well and good because Movies Anywhere is the one distributing the digital copies of the movie, Redbox is not.
We can keep going back and forth, restating the same facts to support the same opinions, or we can wait for the courts to sort it out. I'm buying a bottle of cognac tonight, it can go to whoever the courts determine to be right if we drop this until a decision has been made, or I can enjoy the bottle myself regardless. Your call.
You are correct and the appeal was heard by the Seventh Circuit court. Thank you for pointing out my compound errors; further proof that I should not post that early in the morning.
However, the Circuit Court's decision is still relevant here, even if for different reasons than I originally stated. The decision upholds Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., a Supreme Court decision wherein it was determined that facts, in and of themselves, are not protected by copyright. The code itself is a fact; the paper it is printed on is (arguably) a protected work and distributing a copy of that paper may be a violation of copyright, but the code itself is not protected.
Holy fucking shit that's actually the first 4 sets from one of my Windows 7 Ultimate license keys. I thought it looked familiar, so I dug up the install disc (obtained at the Win7 launch event in Cleveland) and verified.
That might explain why I have to call to activate every time I install it.
The digital copy is not what's being sold, the code (which is one-time-use) is. Not even the slip of paper the code is on (first-sale doctrine, and any exceptions to that, would apply) or a copy of that slip (copyright law would apply), but a fact (the code) which is not protected by copyright. They're in the clear under US law, as well; it's just a matter of them having better lawyers than Disney or getting a judge with some common sense.
That said, to actually redeem the digital copy, one needs to agree to Disney's license.
And, in agreeing to that license, they agree not to distribute the code. Of course, that's not relevant as the code won't work a second time; but the buyer's agreement to the license has no bearing on Redbox. In other words, you're even more right than your words suggest. ;)
Redbox is almost certainly aware that it won't be legal for their customers to redeem those digital copies without also owning a physical copy, since the fine print in these sorts of licenses almost always requires that the person also owns a physical copy.
3. USAGE RULES
a. Adding Movies Anywhere Entitlements. An "Entitlement" is a legitimately acquired license to stream or download a specific Movies Anywhere movie title and its resolution (e.g., Standard Definition or High Definition). Your "My Movies Collection" is made up of Content for which you have by license obtained Entitlements in your Movies Anywhere locker. As a Movies Anywhere Member, you may fill your My Movies Collection with Movies Anywhere-eligible movies based on your Entitlements. Your Entitlements will remain in your My Movies Collection indefinitely, subject to the ongoing validity of your Entitlements and these Movies Anywhere Terms of Use.
Now, I'm not going to paste the full document, but I will link to it. Note that they do not define "legitimately acquired license". Arguable, that's just a license you paid for or were gifted; your actions can be legitimate even if the actions of the person transferring the license to you are not.
As such, those codes are worthless without the physical copy.
They're only worthless if Movies Anywhere refuses to honor them. If Redbox sells the same code twice, well, yes, it would be worthless to the second person to attempt to redeem it.
Redbox is apparently selling the codes as if they are a standalone means to purchase a digital copy, even though they can't be used that way.
When Movies Anywhere accepts the code, that indicates that it, in fact, can be used that way. Since Movies Anywhere is Diseny's authorized digital distribution partner, the copies they make and distribute are explicitly authorized.
In doing so, there's an argument to be made that they're either engaging in fraud by portraying the product as something other than it is
You may have an argument, there. It will be interesting to see if Disney raises that point, but they did not in their original complaint.
or else that they're inducing others to engage in illegal behavior by selling an item that they have every reason to believe will be used illicitly.
Movies Anywhere's servers act to authorize the (one time) use of those codes. If the server accepts it, it's authorized, ergo not illicit; I would be amazed to learn that Movies Anywhere's servers will let you sit there and keep entering codes until you guess one right -- if they don't allow that, they've implicitly defined unauthorized (illicit) use of their systems and it can be reasonably expected that acceptance of a code indicates that code to be valid. They also have a mechanism in place (see link above) to revoke already-redeemed codes so, in the event of an erroneous acceptance, they can correct the issue at a later date.
I think they won't be disabling any redeemed codes sold by Redbox, though; but they may disable codes they themselves buy as part of their efforts to thwart this activity.
Yes, the first-sale doctrine means that Disney exhausted their rights to the items included in the purchase at the time of sale, but the digital copy wasn't included in the purchase. The code to redeem it was. And while it's
Actually, Microsoft wouldn't care. They'll only allow it to be used once, anyway.
In this particular case, this is about a code for a unique download of a movie not the facts themselves. Unless you can't acknowledge that distinction then you can twist the logic as much as you want.
Again, we'll have to let the court rule on this. Argue with the judge afterward, not me beforehand. What you're missing (or willfully ignoring) is that the code itself is a fact, not a copyrighted work. That it can later be used (once and only once, mind you) to obtain a copyrighted work is purely coincidental; the copy that is made and distributed as a result of entering that code is made and distributed by Disney's digital distribution partner who, ostensibly, is authorized to do so upon receipt of a valid code.
You're going to blow a gasket.
You always seem to think I'm over here seething as I reply to you. No, I'm over he laughing. If anything, I'm gonna do what Cartman did and blow a funny fuse.
My point is that publishing a fact does not make stealing more or less illegal according to other laws.
There, we agree. And when Disney's authorized partner makes and distributes a copy of the movie when a valid code (which only works once, mind you) is entered, nothing has been stolen.
Publishing a code does not negate any copyright laws in question.
We agree, there, as well. Of course, it doesn't make Disney's authorized distribution partner any less authorized, either.
So you're unwilling to admit that the code being distributed is for one copyrighted movie?
Indeed, one copy from an authorized source.
And exactly one copy of a movie if the digital copyright system Disney employs works.
Actually, Movies Anywhere enforces this by only accepting a given code once.
How about, since the copy is made and distributed by Disney's digital distribution partner, the copy is authorized. That good enough for you? They can very well not accept the code; but, when they do accept it, they're authorized to provide a copy of the movie. Period.
Indeed. Unless they fully define "codes" and "transfer" on the outside of the box, of course. Which they don't.
It is questionable whether the first-sale doctrine applies here, which makes that the weaker of the possible arguments to be made in defense of Redbox. While it is my opinion that the first-sale doctrine does apply (because the shrink-wrap license does not -- also on my opinion), the court may opine differently. However, it was established in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. that facts, in and of themselves, are not protected works. Since Redbox is distributing facts (the download codes) and not copyrighted works (the slips of paper, or copies thereof), they're in the clear.
Were I their attorney, I would open with that defense, then pile your argument on top of it just to get a chuckle out of them attempting to tear it down (should they even attempt to).
There's also a solid legal argument on licensing alone. Years ago, Microsoft won plenty of lawsuits against businesses & VARs who installed Windows using Enterprise site-licensed installation codes (using legit, purchased codes... but in a way not allowed by the license).
The terms of the license were known, negotiated, and agreed upon prior to the purchase and, thus, were enforceable. Not so much here; especially given that the code will only work once.
If Redbox has a legal leg to stand on, it metaphorically has osteoporosis and polio.
If Redbox were selling the slip of paper with the download code printed on it, they would be in violation of the terms of the license (assuming it's enforceable, which is a tenuous assumption to begin with). If Redbox were selling a copy of the slip of paper with the download code printed on it, they would be in violation of copyright. Redbox is selling the code itself, which is a fact and thus not protected by copyright. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
There's nothing wrong with using .com for internal machines, provided your internal hostnames don't overlap with your public hostnames.
So, basically, what you're saying is I wasn't wrong the first time, yet you chose to argue with me anyway.
The first-sale doctrine is in no way relevant to my argument. They're not selling the paper the code is written on, to which the first-sale doctrine would apply; they're not selling a copy of the paper the code is written on, to which copyright would apply; they're selling the code, itself, which is a fact and thus not protected by copyright. Don't waste your time arguing with me, though; read the ruling after Disney loses.
Your entire point was that the wording and terms are not present at the time of sale. If the terms were present at the time that Redbox buys a movie from Disney to be re-sold, then that destroys your point.
On the slip... in the box... That constitutes them being unavailable at the time of purchase, as you're not allowed to see them until after.
And what case is that?
Linked elsewhere in the discussion. But, since I know you'll just call that a lie, here: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg.
You mean the exact cases that specifically say that Redbox cannot do what they did.
No, I mean the actual complaint Disney filed with the court. It's linked (by another user) elsewhere in this discussion, I suggest you read it. Redbox is not distributing unauthorized copies of protected works. Period.
At any rate, it's irrelevant as the codes are facts and facts aren't protected works.
Well that's pure twisted logic. The code allows for downloading of a digital copy.
Indeed, it does allow for downloading of a digital copy; a digital copy made and distributed by Disney's distribution partner, who has every right to make and distribute that copy. There are rulings supporting the fact that a fact is not protected by copyright, a fact which you are more than welcome to copy all you want and post everywhere you can once you realize it's true. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
The case centered on two well-established principles in United States copyright law: That facts are not copyrightable, but that compilations of facts can be.
"There is an undeniable tension between these two propositions," Justice O'Connor wrote in her decision. "Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data -- i.e. wholly factual information not accompanied by any original expression. On what basis may one claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The sine qua non of copyright is originality."
The ruling is pretty cut and dry.
That's like saying that your PIN is a fact. Me using it to withdraw money from your bank account isn't really "stealing".
Speaking of pure twisted logic... No. My PIN is a fact and, should you guess it, it's not protected by copyright and I have no legal recourse should to go around giving it to everyone under the sun. Using it to take money out of my account, however, is theft, which has nothing to do with whether or not the damn number is protected by copyright. There are 10,000 possible 4 digit ATM PINs, minus PINs that individual banks choose to disallow (like 1234, 0000, 1111, etc...) and way more than 10,000 people with ATM cards capable of withdrawing money; surely, someone else has and uses my PIN on a regular basis.
Further, to use my PIN to access my account, you must also have my ATM card, or at least a copy of it. Now you have a unique collection of facts, which is protected, as explained in the ruling above.
The fact of the matter are copyright rulings are against what Redbox is doing. See Capitol v ReDigi.
ReDigi was distributing copies of digital media. That is, they were copying and distributing copyrighted works. That's infringement. It's also different than what Redbox is doing.
Are you on drugs?
At the moment, Aleve. Does that count?
The .dev TLD is not available.
I never said it was; many others, however, are.
They won't issue you a cert for it.
Because you don't own whatever domain you're using.
If they have done so in the past they will revoke it.
And rightly so, as you don't own a .dev domain.
You CAN'T use .dev as an internal TLD legitimately.
I never said you could. I said you could use a domain that you own.
This is well known, was announced a long time ago, and it is the fault of any organization if they do so now.
Indeed it is.
This shit isn't complicated.
Indeed it is not.
It is no different than if you try to tie a .com address to a local address.
Almost. If you own the .com domain you're using, you're in the clear. The difference, of course, is that you can own a .com domain without being Google, which is a requirement for .dev.
If you do it your shit is broken and you can fix it or leave it broken and cry like a little girl that things work the way they are supposed to today instead of the way they used to before the change.
Actually, your shit's only broken if you use a domain someone else owns, or if you reuse public FQDNs for a domain you own on your private network. Even then, it's only broken if the end result is not what you intended; for example, if you want to display something different for those hostnames when accessed from your internal network, and that's the effect you achieve, you can hardly call it broken.
You still haven't pointed to any specification that disagrees with the above. What you have done, however, is made it very clear that you misunderstood what I wrote.
He's conflating copying and distribution. While copying for personal use (e.g. no distribution) is protected, so is distributing without making a copy; the part he's missing is that infringement requires both parts.
Not really surprising, as UnknowingFool has a history of not thinking through his replies to my posts before mashing that Submit button.