If someone purchases an iPhone and ends their two year contract after they pay the applicable fees associated with an early ended contract, is it against "computer fraud and abuse" to not allow them to use their hardware?
I don't know what you mean by "computer fraud and abuse", but if you pay the termination penalties, you have the legal right to unlock your phone. This does not mean that either AT&T or Apple have a legal obligation to help you do it.
So, applying that logic, if I own an iphone (and am not renting it from AT&T, is it not an abuse of law to release a patch to hardware which intentionally damages my property?
No, because it does not damage your property. I am assuming "patch to hardware" means "software update", because I am aware of no such hardware patching. The software is Apple's property; your ownership of the copy does not include any right of modification, subject to your physical modification of the chip it's stored on. Your installing the software update is entirely voluntary. The software update causes no damage, as the device works as intended afterward (bugs not included).
It is a colossal abuse of common sense, however, to install a software update, as an unlocked user, without waiting for confirmation as to whether it can be unlocked again afterward.
People who bought the iPhone and are allegedly stuck with AT&T for five years as a result, despite having agreed to a two-year contract.
The exclusivity agreement, according to the complaint, prevents any iPhone customer from going anywhere else once their contract is up. The problem is that (a) no one's contract has expired, so there is no evidence for or against Apple and AT&T as to what happens at that time, (b) there are already tools to unlock the iPhone and use the device on other networks, which, after the AT&T contract and the product warranty expires, Apple could not care less about for end users, and (c) the "legal action" discussed does not extend to people unlocking their handsets for the purpose of lawfully connecting them to another provider's network.
This, furthermore, is not a finding of fact or law. It is not an opinion. It is simply a rejection of a dismissal motion. It by no means suggests the final outcome, nor does it endorse any of the allegations made by the plaintiffs. It is entirely possible that this suit will be dismissed further along in the discovery process, dismissed during trial, or that Apple/AT&T will win at trial. It will likely provide nothing of value to consumers either way, with the possible exception of an announcement of an "official" unlocking tool for customers whose initial contracts have expired.
It is important to note that such a tool being offered upon completion of your term commitment would entirely moot this case.
For that matter, is it even enforceable? Can a vendor tell me what brand of computer I have to install its software on, and actually enforce that in court?
Yes and yes.
This victory stands because of the same principles at work behind all software licensing. It says that open source licenses are exactly as enforceable as all other kinds of software licenses.
A copyright holder has the exclusive rights to make and to authorize reproduction, and to control distribution. Short of requiring something independently illegal as a condition, the copyright holder can exercise those rights with any terms he sees fit. The only way a third party (you) comes into legal possession of a copy is by complying with the terms the owner puts on that acquisition. A copyright holder has no obligation to sell anything to you; you have no rights whatsoever in the work unless you receive an authorized copy. If the copy and the distribution are not authorized by the copyright holder or expressly permitted in 107-122, it is copyright infringement.
If the copyright holder comes together with XYZ Brand and, through negotiation, sets a price for a copy based on a set of license restrictions, then lawful possession of the copy includes those conditions. It is fully enforceable in court (short of antitrust violations [independent illegality]).
You purchased a copy for a price, $x, that contemplated a set of restrictions. It is possible that a copy could be purchased without those restrictions, if the copyright holder wishes to, but at a price of $x+y. If you paid $x, you received the value of the copy and the restrictions. This is how upgrade, OEM, bundle, site license, academic, personal, commercial, and bulk licensing works--you get a different amount of use for different concessions and prices. The copyright holder may participate in any scheme they choose. It is not necessary for there to be a "term-less" edition available, though a copyright holder is free to do so.
Almost nobody does, in practice. Even the GPL has limited terms for end users, modifying statutory defaults on the issue of product warranties, liability caps, forum selection, and other matters. It has further limited terms for downstream developers and redistributors, but contrary to the idiotic belief here, the GPL does not make a distinction between "classes" of users (and the law does not, either). Whether you call it an "End User" or a "Distribution" or a "Contributory Development" license does not matter; all users are governed by the same terms, and those terms are the GPL. Its restrictions apply at all times to all users. The typical home user is not affected by those restrictions for the most part (since they're not modifying or distributing), but that's not the same thing as not being bound by them, regardless of what the paper says. A BSD license comes generally closest, imposing the fewest restrictions on the grant of rights.
RealNetworks is nevertheless defending (some aspects of) fair use.
And what would that be? What, exactly, is the fair use being defended?
Backup copies (which, by law, are permitted) are not fair use. "Backup copies" that you use to play the media are not backup copies to begin with--backups are archival only, to be used to replace media in the event of damage.
In neither case is it Fair Use. People here have this really unfortunate habit of not understanding what fair use is and what it allows. Slashdot also has the even more unfortunate habit of presenting what they think the rules should be, and not what they are.
Should there be a personal use exemption codified by statute? Absolutely. Is personal (that is private, noncommercial copying without distribution) use Fair Use? Absolutely not. Is it "fair" to be able to use it that way? Sure, subject to certain caveats. That does not make it Fair Use. The s.106 right to reproduction is not qualified in this way. The act of copying is itself illegal, and always has been in the United States.
Except that non-obviousness is a condition of the solution, and not of identifying the problem.
This process would identify research areas, not patentable results of that research. Everybody knows there aren't any teleporter implementations. That doesn't mean the inventor of a teleporter has created something obvious to someone skilled in the art. IBM is just hoping to identify gaps in research, by using patent volume as a proxy, and thereby use the results to pump money into research in those gap areas, thereby innovating where there is a lack of innovation (and, just so it doesn't raise any philanthropic-alert eyebrows, these areas are also easiest to patent because of their relative inactivity--lack of competition and lack of prior art).
That would be the 16th Amendment. The Fed just taxes to have its way.
No, the anti-commandeering clause is in Amend. X. It has been litigated since long before there was an Amend. XVI.
Amend. XVI, furthermore, is a change in the method of raising the taxes to fund Article I spending, and has no substantive impact on what the taxes are raised for.
For whatever moving target values of 'traditional' that feel good at the moment.
No. It's a well-crafted set of functions, primarily those enacted through municipal operations and internal commerce.
Because some choose to move, all must pay so that the whole country is essentially a single state.
Horseshit. Because it is a program for the general welfare, it is implemented federally through an executive agency, directly under the Article I umbrella permitting it.
Amendment 10 seems a common-sense measure to preclude both entitlement nonsense, and this sub-prime meltdown as well.
Where? The "sub-prime meltdown" is a result of the lack of federal regulation. Entitlement spending is by definition federal, and always has been. It's non-discretionary application of Congressional mandate, expressed with the passage of overwhelming popular support. I ask again, where was the amendment violated? How is Social Security not an Article I power? What is general welfare, if not health, safety, and maintenance of basic human dignity? This is precisely the reason that clause exists. I don't see any state turning down the money in favor of its own solution.
There's crotchety and there's ignorant, and you're the latter.
It's a fairly basic truism that prevents the federal government from commandeering the states to action. It also separates the traditional functions of local government from federal control. Further, there is no prohibition on states or the people delegating that power back to federal programs where it makes sense to do so. Again, this is a case where Social Security comes in--a state-by-state program would not be transferable when you move to Boca.
You've still not answered the question, but by now the reason is clear.
I've been traveling Europe and the easiest way to get internet without going through the complicated identification requirements is to get a mobile internet connection.
That's exactly what this is.
In Vodafone and Orange have similar services in UK and portugal.
Yes, but not similar prices at similar speeds. If you don't need voice services, or you don't want to swap SIM cards (like business travelers who need to be reached at their regular number), the availability of these "similar services" is neither similar nor useful.
Or you could just get a SIM card for your phone, load up the data package and add it to the prepaid SIM, and tether. I imagine you can find an appropriate 3G phone for less than £50, if you don't want to take out your voice service SIM.
$4 per day with a 3 gigabyte cap per month. I'm not sure which part of the world you live in where you are ok with throwing away $100 USD per month for internet on your phone
I'm not sure what part of the world you live in where you would pay a daily rate for 30 days when a monthly plan at a third the price is available.
Or you could go with Orange, who has £5/month mobile data, but you give up 3G speeds (GPRS only, last time I used it).
Keeping in mind the general high cost of goods and services in the UK relative to Asia and the United States, not to mention the unusually low cost of Internet services in Asia, their $55/month 3G isn't bad at all. Not everywhere can match the blissful data paradise of Asia and Scandinavia.
With hourly metering, you get into the zone uselessness--the administrative costs go up, the transaction costs skyrocket, and the price can't possibly get much better than £2. Anything below 50p/hour is not realistically conceivable and it just doesn't make sense, since there's no real savings to speak of.
Where there is hourly access, it's been my experience that the cost is usually a few Euros/pounds/$5US and up. Partly profiteering, admittedly, so they could lower prices to compete with T-Mobile. But T-Mo has effectively priced that service out of the market, which ends up working well.
Most people get quite reasonable daily access, in part made possible (i.e., subsidized) by people like you who might only use an hour or two, but who are willing to shell out an extra pound for the convenience. Nobody gets hosed. It's pretty close to win-win.
what's to prevent somebody from copyrighting and similarly suppressing transmissions themselves based upon a particular encryption algorithm used in the act of transmission?
Well, ignoring for the moment the fact that algorithms aren't copyrightable, the obvious (or, perhaps, not so obvious, apparently) problem with this theory is that the copyright holder can't force you to use their copyright. No one would adopt your algorithm without explicit license agreements permitting them to use it for broadcast, and no potential competitor would ever give you veto power over content.
This wouldn't give any entity more power than the broadcasters already have, and broadcasters wouldn't be willing to cede any of that power to someone else. Who would this even be used against?
Again, though, because an algorithm isn't copyrightable, it's a moot point.
Yes, but it's absolutely fantastic if you travel frequently to the UK for short stints. Paying £7 for a week's worth of fairly generous 3G data access, or £2/day, or any other tiers they may have is a great option for those of us where this is the case. This is especially true of corporate accounts that have disabled international data roaming in the downturn, leaving overseas cell and data usage to a tedious reimbursement system (designed to drive people mad before actually cutting any checks/cheques).
At £2 a day, it can come out of the per diem and no one will miss it enough to file for reimbursement.
For vacation travelers, they've got Internet access without being nickel-and-dimed with usage charges based on kB.
I'm not aware of anything competitive with this in the US, or in most European countries, for that matter--usually I've just seen monthly unlimited plans (for cheap enough prices that it's worth paying, even if you're just there for a week, but still).
I do not have time at the moment to address these comments fully, but I will make some initial responses.
Nor am I generally liable for what others' do with my product
Again, you are talking of a different situation entirely. Finland most certainly does have product liability and tort damages, and claims are not limited to 100% refund of purchase price. Liability does extend to free products. See e.g., http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1990/en19900694.pdf.
Where Finland does differ from many other countries is that product liability cannot be disclaimed. At all. Thus that provision of the GPL is unenforceable, and in turn engages another miscellaneous provision: the litigation section. It specifies interpretation in the event of countervailing local law.
This whole business of disclaimers is more or less entirely US invention, as far as I know.
It is not. Unfortunately, due to billing issues, I do not subscribe to international databases through Westlaw and cannot quickly or cheaply produce a list of cases. However, given that the law of contract in virtually all UN member states is such that terminology is presumed legal, here are a few from a cursory Google search:
I would be interested to see any Finnish law that specifies that an agreement with a warranty disclaimer, operative as specified under the laws of Finland, is not enforceable. Surely Nokia has been sued over a warranty claim; this issue would no doubt arise, and I have never heard of a Finnish citizen suing Nokia over a warranty claim such that the warranty disclaimer was held to be invalid.
excludes acts "done privately and for purposes which are not commercial
This covers private AND noncommercial. It does not specify that noncommercial use alone is non-infringing, particularly in light of the fact that "commercial" is broadly construed.
In Finland, accepting your translation, such a section would be enforceable, but mooted by the offering of what appears to be a statutory license for private use.
The overall issue remains that there are conflicting laws in some of the places that GPL software is used. None of those places flatly prohibits the wide range of disclaimers, limits, notices, and limitations as a whole. The fact also remains that the GPL, should it wish to have a distribution license, should have one as a separate entity, apart from those terms which are effective and binding at acquisition. Rights of reproduction, modification, and distribution change the character of the entire instrument from a notice to a license agreement. One simply cannot create a document with binding notices and the licensure of protected rights, along with restrictions on their use, that is presented to everyone, and subsequently specify that it may be ignored.
They may feel free to distribute their work with a simple copyright notice, which would indeed permit use in any way not inconsistent with copyright law. But they cannot add any non-notice, non-scope restrictions without becoming a license agreement, regardless of whether the rights being conveyed are done by statutory license or by express license. All recipients of GPL software receive the rights to use, modify, reproduce, and distribute. All recipients are bound to honor the various restrictions and conditions of exercising said set of rights. That there is no restriction on use simply signifies a nonexistent burden, not that the remaining 99% of the text may be ignored.
If they wish to make a distinction, then they should make a separate grant.
Feel free to do so, but that does not change the essential fact. It is not possible to achieve without balancing interests. Ideological blinders are still blinders.
It assumes rational self-interest, which in turn relies on intelligent, informed decisionmakers. It relies on self-regulation, which is demonstrably ineffective (there is no such thing as environmental protectionism in libertarianism).
It is the political science equivalent of "the math works, assuming a spherical, frictionless cow". It is an academic model suffering from the same impossibility of implementation as communism. It only works given flawless conditions, which is to say that it does not work.
It offers no mechanism to correct imbalances that inevitably arise in society, and it places ideological integrity ahead of pragmatic effectiveness. It cannot adapt to the conflict that "maximum personal liberty" is nonlinear and NP-complete unless you live in a single-issue society. Perhaps most vexingly, it supposes a government which protects private interests and thus has nothing resembling a check on corporate power, despite academic protests to the contrary. What is best for the individual is sometimes in conflict with what is best for society, or for the world at large and libertarianism doesn't accept that as a compelling justification. What's more, it relies on acting in long-term interests, which we have habitually not done, even in the presence of regulation, and instead of solving the free rider problem, libertarians simply deny it as a factor.
You can make strides to pull issues and legislation in a "libertarian" direction, but the libertarian ideal can never be realized. You cannot have a libertarian society.
By *distributing*, which is copyright holder's exclusive right.
It doesn't matter what the performance is. Assent has nothing to do with copyright. You are again conflating separate issues.
I would argue that when someone puts a file up for download, they're thereby giving permission to download it
Subject to the terms of use of the download service.
Statutory warranties cannot be disclaimed; even attempting to do so could be considered fraudulent. Some statutory rights cannot even be removed by contract (law explicitly declares such contracts void).
Product warranties aren't statutory, and what statutory rights may be waived by contract depends on the statute and on established rules of jurisprudence.
Here I won't be liable to what someone does with my stuff
You're still not getting it. You're not liable for their actions, you are liable for the consequences of use of your product. Limitation of liability is not an American concept, and it is quite clear that you are not a legal expert based on these exchanges. I would suggest approaching the subject with more restraint if you choose to comment in the future, as you are broadly and continually misstating issues and framing arguments with the wrong supporting facts. To wit:
Patents do not apply to non-commercial use at all. At least not by European patent convention, but I doubt even USA can be *that* different.
A patent is an exclusive right to make and use, period. There is no limitation on commercial exploitation.
At least not by European patent convention
The EPC does not specify what acts constitute infringement; there is no such thing as a "European" patent when it comes to infringement. The law applied is that of the state in which infringement is alleged, and there is significant variation among the European states.
And not even all Americans, see, e.g., Daniel Bernstein
Daniel Bernstein has even less understanding of the Copyright Act and its implications than you do. No US court has ever held a software license ipso facto unlawful. Ever. 17 USC 117 only applies once lawful ownership is established in the copy. Possession of the medium is necessary, but not sufficient, evidence of ownership. You also require evidence that you acquired the medium along with rights in the work under the authority of the copyright holder, who has an exclusive right, among others, to make and authorize copies and distribution.
In Palin's case its evident that a number of her contacts are @alaska.gov... meaning she was corresponding as 'personal palin' to other public officials using their office-accounts.
Not necessarily. It's important to note that there are three components in play here: personal, political, and government.
Government resources are expressly enjoined from being used to send messages for partisan political purposes. The governor sending messages to contacts for political purposes could not be done lawfully from her governor@ account. Corresponding as 'personal palin' to public officials is the only lawful way to engage in these partisan activities.
There's no way to tell from the addressee whether the content was political or governmental in nature. That's not to say either way whether these messages, if legitimate, are or are not appropriate. But just because the correspondence is "official" does not mean it's evasive.
Whether the download itself was legal or not cannot depend on things that happen after it.
It doesn't. The terms are in place from the beginning, available to review in advance. The reason the convention is to ask for assent between downloading and installation is because the copy only becomes fixed once downloaded, and possession of a copy is not coterminous with asserting ownership of a copy. Assent upon attempting use ensures that the person agreeing is asserting ownership.
Your point is taken that there would be zero question if assent was requested before downloading as well as agreement upon use, but that is why the terms of service of the website generally include compliance with license agreements as a condition of downloading.
Are you seriously arguing that one could enter a contract by the act of downloading a program without even clicking any OK in the process? I don't think so.
This is precisely how the GPL works: by distributing, you have agreed to the license granting you the right to distribute. It's not pretty, but it's how it works. You are making a distinction without a difference. If the download button contains terms of service, or declares that "by clicking 'Download' you agree to the {following|linked|above|incorporated by reference} terms, then that's how it works.
Warranty? Absent agreement there obviously won't be any. Liability, litigation? If I do something illegal with the program, I'll be liable in any case. Ditto patent license (which don't matter for noncommercial use anyway).
None of the above is accurate in the least.
1. Warranty is imputed by statute. You must disclaim implied warranties or they are assumed to be present. 2. Limitation of liability is for the copyright owner, not the user. Without caps, limits, or other mechanisms, you are open to a wide range of damages, and juries tend to return sizable awards. 3. Litigation agreements, e.g., choice of law, is a civil procedure issue, not a substantive issue. 4. Patent licenses are irrespective of noncommercial use. There is no fair use, personal use, or noncommercial use exception for patent infringement. If there is a patent on the software, the GPL requires the patent holder to give a royalty-free, nonexclusive license to all users of GPL software. The user must cite the GPL's protections if sued for patent infringement; they must establish that they received a license and that means invoking the GPL, because there is no compulsory license for this purpose at law. It also means that it can be used as evidence to support a counterclaim against the plaintiff, but that is an entirely different can of worms.
Downloading a file cannot by itself create a contract, and whether or not it is legal cannot be changed after the fact. So if you put a file up for download without requiring an explicit contract beforehand
Yes, but this scenario almost never occurs. Any given website has terms of use, governing the act of clicking on the download button in the first place. Whether or not it is legal most certainly can be changed after the fact; a license may be revoked, and legal possession does not preclude infringement. Illegal acquisition can be cured by license agreement and in fact is one of the most active areas of licensing law. It's the major element of most settlement negotiations.
Or if the download was illegal, it remains that way regardless of any contracts made afterwards.
No. It is entirely within the rights of the copyright holder to sanction any use and cure infringement by license. See above.
Yes, but only insofar as they refer to acts that the copyright holder has exclusive right to:
Yes, and among those exclusive rights are the right to make and to authorize copies and to distribute them, by any means they choose to do so. If they choose to make separate contractual requirements as a condition of acquisition, they are free to do so. Only once the owner has given his permission does a copy change hands.
Notice that "running" and "using" are not mentioned.
Because no restrictions are made on those actions. The lack of restrictions does not imply a lack of applicable terms, however, as, for the nth time, the warranty, liability, litigation, compulsory patent license, and conditional modification/distribution grant applies to everyone. Everyone is obligated to respect those terms, found expressly within the text of the license, and requiring acknowledgment.
When I buy a book, I don't need a license to read it. When I buy scissors, I don't need a license to use them.
When you purchase a copyright, you can apply the same argument. Up until that point, the acquisition of a copy gives you certain limited usage rights, and the copyright holder is free to condition that acquisition from the statutory understanding of a "sale". This is how they limit their liability, and also how they set prices, where applicable.
Yes, but only because those rights are exclusively granted to copyright holder. Running the program is not.
An obtuse and disconnected response. What you responded to has nothing to do with where the authorization to run the program comes from. All limitations, restrictions, and return promises must be made at t=0. You must give assent at that time to all of it. Refusal of the warranty disclaimer denies you a license; you have no right to use the software at that point, unless you want to be open to crushing liability. "If I acquire a work as an end user, but then later learn how to program and want to go back and exercise rights granted to me at t=0, the only way those restrictions can apply is if I gave assent at t=0." You don't get to go back in time, in other words. The grant occurred to all recipients, whether or not they choose to exercise it at that time, in the future, or not at all. The restrictions and disclaimers must also apply to all users at that time, or they are not enforceable.
Since you don't need a permission to run the program in the first place, that is irrelevant.
You can't run the program without lawful possession, and the copyright holder has exclusive rights to determine what possession to give you. This is the conceptual problem with your remarks. Once the copyright holder has given you the copy (with whatever terms, conditions, or caveats it may have), you have a statutory license to make your copy operate--but in no way is that an unlimited right. If the copy says "one computer only", they mean it. If the copy is for noncommercial use only, they mean it. If the copy is OEM for your Dell machine only, they mean it. Copyright law does not give you the authority to ignore license restrictions unless they are independently illegal.
Nope. Once you legally possess a piece of software, you can legally use it.
You're confusing two different issues here. The GPL specifies assent by performance. Those terms are valid and enforceable.
"Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance..." GPL v2, s.
"You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force." GPL v3, s2. That defines the scope of your usage rights.
It is sloppy to attempt to ill-define "acceptance" or to attempt to carve end users out of the equation, since the license is the major source of warranty, liability, and litigation information and by not including end users, there's a notice problem for those provisions. Further, the attempt to make the distinction has been roundly criticized within the legal community, and rightly so, as being irrelevant and political.
The license does impose restrictions on end users (in all caps, no less), and it would seek to use the document to uphold them should they be litigated. A court would rightly enforce them as being part of the terms under which the user attained the software. The "no acceptance" sentence makes no legal sense and is just a knee-jerk reaction to a misunderstood issue. As for actual users, accepting that there are no limits on use of the copyrighted work doesn't change the function or the intent of the GPL, but it must still happen as a legal reality. Otherwise, if I have not given assent to the license, then I don't have to recognize the limited liability or warranty disclaimer, because it's not good notice, and then I have a whole different ball game in court.
But any licenses you only discover after downloading can't alter the legality of your possession of the software, nor your right to run it.
That's not true. "Discovery" is not an acceptable standard in any jurisdiction.
Further, the only way to provide evidence of copyright infringement is to refer back to the license, whose terms must apply at acquisition. All of them. You must show that the restrictions were in place from the beginning, and of course they are. If I acquire a work as an end user, but then later learn how to program and want to go back and exercise rights granted to me at t=0, the only way those restrictions can apply is if I gave assent at t=0. This is also why the license must be conveyed with the copies--so everyone is aware of the restrictions placed on them.
"The act of running the Program is not restricted" appears in Section 0 under the Terms--this text is essential information. Were your interpretation understood to be correct, this kind of notification would be superfluous, and in accordance with the rules of interpretation, all words are deemed to have value.
What would a judge say about paying 50$ for a box?
Nothing at all, because judges do not consider the adequacy of consideration except in special circumstances. You have an article, worth $50. You can consume the article by opening it and engaging the license, or you can transfer the article, still worth $50, to another party.
There's an idea called the "Meeting of the Minds", that even applies in a box store. You THINK you're buying X, but according to you, you're buying a box that a EULA can disclaim all liability.
You're confusing yourself here with your utter lack of legal knowledge. Meeting of the minds has nothing to do with consideration, and it has nothing to do with the purchase of an article. You think you are buying and you are buying the same thing. The retailer doesn't have the authority to license anything to you under copyright; they only have the authority to sell you an article. Consider a prepaid SIM card. The retailer is selling you a piece of plastic. $100 though it may be, it's just the sale of an article on the shelf. The value of the article is in a contractual agreement, through which use of someone else's property is established.
So ALL used-CD stores are illegal? Or are used DVD stores illegal?
Thats right... THEY ARENT. Stop spreading lies and uncertainty.
One thing has nothing to do with the other. There is nothing unlawful about used music/movie stores, or about selling your complete interest in a software product. Stop spreading lies and uncertainty, indeed.
What exactly is the vehicle of copyright?
License, whether vested statutorily, by grant, or by agreement. What form that takes depends on the work and the author.
Copyright serves to screw over people with honest actions and intentions.[...]That's why Im an encourager of piracy.
QED.
What promotion of useful arts does a 150+ year term on copyrights serve?
The production of further works. It's quite clearly a success, given the number of works released under copyright today. Copyright was never intended to benefit contemporaries, but to seed for society's future use. Society values artists and entertainers, but as you've deftly demonstrated, will not voluntarily support the volumes we desire.
You don't have to like copyright. When you create something, you can feel free to be far more permissive with the terms under which you share it. But you don't get to make that choice for someone else, and consumers don't get to make that choice for producers of art.
Legal posession happened when I paid for my copy at the register.
Not legal possession of the right to use a copyrighted work, but legal possession of a box. The only legal possession of copyrighted works at that point are what's printed on the box. The work is not fixed in the box, and so anything packaged with the copy, that is, the disc, comes as a package deal.
DFS gives you the full power to sell or transfer that box and its contents. But as long as the package remains sealed, all you've got is the option to assert ownership of a copy.
If this puzzles you, consider the following scenario. You are accused of copyright infringement, say unlawful reproduction of a software work. You cannot present a sealed box as evidence in your defense, because a sealed box doesn't give you any copyright interest in the software product tucked inside.
Any contract presented after that is without consideration.
Well, since the contract was in the box from the beginning, it's not really a problem. More to the point, though, the timing or indeed the presentation of terms are irrelevant to the issue of consideration. There is no rule that you be presented with terms at all; only that they be made available to you upon request to review in advance. It's your responsibility to know what you're purchasing, and with the wealth of information and opportunities beforehand, not to mention course of trade and decades of industry practice, you'll find little sympathy. It is not possible to say that you felt that the price included an unrestricted copy with no additional terms.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone purchases an iPhone and ends their two year contract after they pay the applicable fees associated with an early ended contract, is it against "computer fraud and abuse" to not allow them to use their hardware?
I don't know what you mean by "computer fraud and abuse", but if you pay the termination penalties, you have the legal right to unlock your phone. This does not mean that either AT&T or Apple have a legal obligation to help you do it.
So, applying that logic, if I own an iphone (and am not renting it from AT&T, is it not an abuse of law to release a patch to hardware which intentionally damages my property?
No, because it does not damage your property. I am assuming "patch to hardware" means "software update", because I am aware of no such hardware patching. The software is Apple's property; your ownership of the copy does not include any right of modification, subject to your physical modification of the chip it's stored on. Your installing the software update is entirely voluntary. The software update causes no damage, as the device works as intended afterward (bugs not included).
It is a colossal abuse of common sense, however, to install a software update, as an unlocked user, without waiting for confirmation as to whether it can be unlocked again afterward.
D. None of the above.
People who bought the iPhone and are allegedly stuck with AT&T for five years as a result, despite having agreed to a two-year contract.
The exclusivity agreement, according to the complaint, prevents any iPhone customer from going anywhere else once their contract is up. The problem is that (a) no one's contract has expired, so there is no evidence for or against Apple and AT&T as to what happens at that time, (b) there are already tools to unlock the iPhone and use the device on other networks, which, after the AT&T contract and the product warranty expires, Apple could not care less about for end users, and (c) the "legal action" discussed does not extend to people unlocking their handsets for the purpose of lawfully connecting them to another provider's network.
This, furthermore, is not a finding of fact or law. It is not an opinion. It is simply a rejection of a dismissal motion. It by no means suggests the final outcome, nor does it endorse any of the allegations made by the plaintiffs. It is entirely possible that this suit will be dismissed further along in the discovery process, dismissed during trial, or that Apple/AT&T will win at trial. It will likely provide nothing of value to consumers either way, with the possible exception of an announcement of an "official" unlocking tool for customers whose initial contracts have expired.
It is important to note that such a tool being offered upon completion of your term commitment would entirely moot this case.
For that matter, is it even enforceable? Can a vendor tell me what brand of computer I have to install its software on, and actually enforce that in court?
Yes and yes.
This victory stands because of the same principles at work behind all software licensing. It says that open source licenses are exactly as enforceable as all other kinds of software licenses.
A copyright holder has the exclusive rights to make and to authorize reproduction, and to control distribution. Short of requiring something independently illegal as a condition, the copyright holder can exercise those rights with any terms he sees fit. The only way a third party (you) comes into legal possession of a copy is by complying with the terms the owner puts on that acquisition. A copyright holder has no obligation to sell anything to you; you have no rights whatsoever in the work unless you receive an authorized copy. If the copy and the distribution are not authorized by the copyright holder or expressly permitted in 107-122, it is copyright infringement.
If the copyright holder comes together with XYZ Brand and, through negotiation, sets a price for a copy based on a set of license restrictions, then lawful possession of the copy includes those conditions. It is fully enforceable in court (short of antitrust violations [independent illegality]).
You purchased a copy for a price, $x, that contemplated a set of restrictions. It is possible that a copy could be purchased without those restrictions, if the copyright holder wishes to, but at a price of $x+y. If you paid $x, you received the value of the copy and the restrictions. This is how upgrade, OEM, bundle, site license, academic, personal, commercial, and bulk licensing works--you get a different amount of use for different concessions and prices. The copyright holder may participate in any scheme they choose. It is not necessary for there to be a "term-less" edition available, though a copyright holder is free to do so.
Almost nobody does, in practice. Even the GPL has limited terms for end users, modifying statutory defaults on the issue of product warranties, liability caps, forum selection, and other matters. It has further limited terms for downstream developers and redistributors, but contrary to the idiotic belief here, the GPL does not make a distinction between "classes" of users (and the law does not, either). Whether you call it an "End User" or a "Distribution" or a "Contributory Development" license does not matter; all users are governed by the same terms, and those terms are the GPL. Its restrictions apply at all times to all users. The typical home user is not affected by those restrictions for the most part (since they're not modifying or distributing), but that's not the same thing as not being bound by them, regardless of what the paper says. A BSD license comes generally closest, imposing the fewest restrictions on the grant of rights.
RealNetworks is nevertheless defending (some aspects of) fair use.
And what would that be? What, exactly, is the fair use being defended?
Backup copies (which, by law, are permitted) are not fair use. "Backup copies" that you use to play the media are not backup copies to begin with--backups are archival only, to be used to replace media in the event of damage.
In neither case is it Fair Use. People here have this really unfortunate habit of not understanding what fair use is and what it allows. Slashdot also has the even more unfortunate habit of presenting what they think the rules should be, and not what they are.
Should there be a personal use exemption codified by statute? Absolutely. Is personal (that is private, noncommercial copying without distribution) use Fair Use? Absolutely not. Is it "fair" to be able to use it that way? Sure, subject to certain caveats. That does not make it Fair Use. The s.106 right to reproduction is not qualified in this way. The act of copying is itself illegal, and always has been in the United States.
Except that non-obviousness is a condition of the solution, and not of identifying the problem.
This process would identify research areas, not patentable results of that research. Everybody knows there aren't any teleporter implementations. That doesn't mean the inventor of a teleporter has created something obvious to someone skilled in the art. IBM is just hoping to identify gaps in research, by using patent volume as a proxy, and thereby use the results to pump money into research in those gap areas, thereby innovating where there is a lack of innovation (and, just so it doesn't raise any philanthropic-alert eyebrows, these areas are also easiest to patent because of their relative inactivity--lack of competition and lack of prior art).
That would be the 16th Amendment. The Fed just taxes to have its way.
No, the anti-commandeering clause is in Amend. X. It has been litigated since long before there was an Amend. XVI.
Amend. XVI, furthermore, is a change in the method of raising the taxes to fund Article I spending, and has no substantive impact on what the taxes are raised for.
For whatever moving target values of 'traditional' that feel good at the moment.
No. It's a well-crafted set of functions, primarily those enacted through municipal operations and internal commerce.
Because some choose to move, all must pay so that the whole country is essentially a single state.
Horseshit. Because it is a program for the general welfare, it is implemented federally through an executive agency, directly under the Article I umbrella permitting it.
Amendment 10 seems a common-sense measure to preclude both entitlement nonsense, and this sub-prime meltdown as well.
Where? The "sub-prime meltdown" is a result of the lack of federal regulation. Entitlement spending is by definition federal, and always has been. It's non-discretionary application of Congressional mandate, expressed with the passage of overwhelming popular support. I ask again, where was the amendment violated? How is Social Security not an Article I power? What is general welfare, if not health, safety, and maintenance of basic human dignity? This is precisely the reason that clause exists. I don't see any state turning down the money in favor of its own solution.
There's crotchety and there's ignorant, and you're the latter.
It's a fairly basic truism that prevents the federal government from commandeering the states to action. It also separates the traditional functions of local government from federal control. Further, there is no prohibition on states or the people delegating that power back to federal programs where it makes sense to do so. Again, this is a case where Social Security comes in--a state-by-state program would not be transferable when you move to Boca.
You've still not answered the question, but by now the reason is clear.
Article I, Section 8.
Social Security is a textbook example of spending for the "general welfare" of the people of the United States.
Where, exactly, is the Amend. X violation?
Try again. Those are contract plans. Orange requires an 18-month commitment, and Vodafone 24 months.
This is zero-commitment.
I've been traveling Europe and the easiest way to get internet without going through the complicated identification requirements is to get a mobile internet connection.
That's exactly what this is.
In Vodafone and Orange have similar services in UK and portugal.
Yes, but not similar prices at similar speeds. If you don't need voice services, or you don't want to swap SIM cards (like business travelers who need to be reached at their regular number), the availability of these "similar services" is neither similar nor useful.
In India Reliance/Airtel will let you dial-up
Not comparable.
Or you could just get a SIM card for your phone, load up the data package and add it to the prepaid SIM, and tether. I imagine you can find an appropriate 3G phone for less than £50, if you don't want to take out your voice service SIM.
$4 per day with a 3 gigabyte cap per month. I'm not sure which part of the world you live in where you are ok with throwing away $100 USD per month for internet on your phone
I'm not sure what part of the world you live in where you would pay a daily rate for 30 days when a monthly plan at a third the price is available.
Or you could go with Orange, who has £5/month mobile data, but you give up 3G speeds (GPRS only, last time I used it).
Keeping in mind the general high cost of goods and services in the UK relative to Asia and the United States, not to mention the unusually low cost of Internet services in Asia, their $55/month 3G isn't bad at all. Not everywhere can match the blissful data paradise of Asia and Scandinavia.
With hourly metering, you get into the zone uselessness--the administrative costs go up, the transaction costs skyrocket, and the price can't possibly get much better than £2. Anything below 50p/hour is not realistically conceivable and it just doesn't make sense, since there's no real savings to speak of.
Where there is hourly access, it's been my experience that the cost is usually a few Euros/pounds/$5US and up. Partly profiteering, admittedly, so they could lower prices to compete with T-Mobile. But T-Mo has effectively priced that service out of the market, which ends up working well.
Most people get quite reasonable daily access, in part made possible (i.e., subsidized) by people like you who might only use an hour or two, but who are willing to shell out an extra pound for the convenience. Nobody gets hosed. It's pretty close to win-win.
what's to prevent somebody from copyrighting and similarly suppressing transmissions themselves based upon a particular encryption algorithm used in the act of transmission?
Well, ignoring for the moment the fact that algorithms aren't copyrightable, the obvious (or, perhaps, not so obvious, apparently) problem with this theory is that the copyright holder can't force you to use their copyright. No one would adopt your algorithm without explicit license agreements permitting them to use it for broadcast, and no potential competitor would ever give you veto power over content.
This wouldn't give any entity more power than the broadcasters already have, and broadcasters wouldn't be willing to cede any of that power to someone else. Who would this even be used against?
Again, though, because an algorithm isn't copyrightable, it's a moot point.
Yes, but it's absolutely fantastic if you travel frequently to the UK for short stints. Paying £7 for a week's worth of fairly generous 3G data access, or £2/day, or any other tiers they may have is a great option for those of us where this is the case. This is especially true of corporate accounts that have disabled international data roaming in the downturn, leaving overseas cell and data usage to a tedious reimbursement system (designed to drive people mad before actually cutting any checks/cheques).
At £2 a day, it can come out of the per diem and no one will miss it enough to file for reimbursement.
For vacation travelers, they've got Internet access without being nickel-and-dimed with usage charges based on kB.
I'm not aware of anything competitive with this in the US, or in most European countries, for that matter--usually I've just seen monthly unlimited plans (for cheap enough prices that it's worth paying, even if you're just there for a week, but still).
I do not have time at the moment to address these comments fully, but I will make some initial responses.
Nor am I generally liable for what others' do with my product
Again, you are talking of a different situation entirely. Finland most certainly does have product liability and tort damages, and claims are not limited to 100% refund of purchase price. Liability does extend to free products. See e.g., http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1990/en19900694.pdf.
Where Finland does differ from many other countries is that product liability cannot be disclaimed. At all. Thus that provision of the GPL is unenforceable, and in turn engages another miscellaneous provision: the litigation section. It specifies interpretation in the event of countervailing local law.
This whole business of disclaimers is more or less entirely US invention, as far as I know.
It is not. Unfortunately, due to billing issues, I do not subscribe to international databases through Westlaw and cannot quickly or cheaply produce a list of cases. However, given that the law of contract in virtually all UN member states is such that terminology is presumed legal, here are a few from a cursory Google search:
England: http://www.solartronanalytical.com/legal/disclaimers.htm
Finland: http://europe.nokia.com/A4164022
I would be interested to see any Finnish law that specifies that an agreement with a warranty disclaimer, operative as specified under the laws of Finland, is not enforceable. Surely Nokia has been sued over a warranty claim; this issue would no doubt arise, and I have never heard of a Finnish citizen suing Nokia over a warranty claim such that the warranty disclaimer was held to be invalid.
excludes acts "done privately and for purposes which are not commercial
This covers private AND noncommercial. It does not specify that noncommercial use alone is non-infringing, particularly in light of the fact that "commercial" is broadly construed.
In Finland, accepting your translation, such a section would be enforceable, but mooted by the offering of what appears to be a statutory license for private use.
The overall issue remains that there are conflicting laws in some of the places that GPL software is used. None of those places flatly prohibits the wide range of disclaimers, limits, notices, and limitations as a whole. The fact also remains that the GPL, should it wish to have a distribution license, should have one as a separate entity, apart from those terms which are effective and binding at acquisition. Rights of reproduction, modification, and distribution change the character of the entire instrument from a notice to a license agreement. One simply cannot create a document with binding notices and the licensure of protected rights, along with restrictions on their use, that is presented to everyone, and subsequently specify that it may be ignored.
They may feel free to distribute their work with a simple copyright notice, which would indeed permit use in any way not inconsistent with copyright law. But they cannot add any non-notice, non-scope restrictions without becoming a license agreement, regardless of whether the rights being conveyed are done by statutory license or by express license. All recipients of GPL software receive the rights to use, modify, reproduce, and distribute. All recipients are bound to honor the various restrictions and conditions of exercising said set of rights. That there is no restriction on use simply signifies a nonexistent burden, not that the remaining 99% of the text may be ignored.
If they wish to make a distinction, then they should make a separate grant.
Yes, everybody must be equal. Fascist much?
I said no such thing. Distort much?
I disagree.
Feel free to do so, but that does not change the essential fact. It is not possible to achieve without balancing interests. Ideological blinders are still blinders.
It assumes rational self-interest, which in turn relies on intelligent, informed decisionmakers. It relies on self-regulation, which is demonstrably ineffective (there is no such thing as environmental protectionism in libertarianism).
It is the political science equivalent of "the math works, assuming a spherical, frictionless cow". It is an academic model suffering from the same impossibility of implementation as communism. It only works given flawless conditions, which is to say that it does not work.
It offers no mechanism to correct imbalances that inevitably arise in society, and it places ideological integrity ahead of pragmatic effectiveness. It cannot adapt to the conflict that "maximum personal liberty" is nonlinear and NP-complete unless you live in a single-issue society. Perhaps most vexingly, it supposes a government which protects private interests and thus has nothing resembling a check on corporate power, despite academic protests to the contrary. What is best for the individual is sometimes in conflict with what is best for society, or for the world at large and libertarianism doesn't accept that as a compelling justification. What's more, it relies on acting in long-term interests, which we have habitually not done, even in the presence of regulation, and instead of solving the free rider problem, libertarians simply deny it as a factor.
You can make strides to pull issues and legislation in a "libertarian" direction, but the libertarian ideal can never be realized. You cannot have a libertarian society.
By *distributing*, which is copyright holder's exclusive right.
It doesn't matter what the performance is. Assent has nothing to do with copyright. You are again conflating separate issues.
I would argue that when someone puts a file up for download, they're thereby giving permission to download it
Subject to the terms of use of the download service.
Statutory warranties cannot be disclaimed; even attempting to do so could be considered fraudulent. Some statutory rights cannot even be removed by contract (law explicitly declares such contracts void).
Product warranties aren't statutory, and what statutory rights may be waived by contract depends on the statute and on established rules of jurisprudence.
Here I won't be liable to what someone does with my stuff
You're still not getting it. You're not liable for their actions, you are liable for the consequences of use of your product. Limitation of liability is not an American concept, and it is quite clear that you are not a legal expert based on these exchanges. I would suggest approaching the subject with more restraint if you choose to comment in the future, as you are broadly and continually misstating issues and framing arguments with the wrong supporting facts. To wit:
Patents do not apply to non-commercial use at all. At least not by European patent convention, but I doubt even USA can be *that* different.
A patent is an exclusive right to make and use, period. There is no limitation on commercial exploitation.
At least not by European patent convention
The EPC does not specify what acts constitute infringement; there is no such thing as a "European" patent when it comes to infringement. The law applied is that of the state in which infringement is alleged, and there is significant variation among the European states.
And not even all Americans, see, e.g., Daniel Bernstein
Daniel Bernstein has even less understanding of the Copyright Act and its implications than you do. No US court has ever held a software license ipso facto unlawful. Ever. 17 USC 117 only applies once lawful ownership is established in the copy. Possession of the medium is necessary, but not sufficient, evidence of ownership. You also require evidence that you acquired the medium along with rights in the work under the authority of the copyright holder, who has an exclusive right, among others, to make and authorize copies and distribution.
In Palin's case its evident that a number of her contacts are @alaska.gov... meaning she was corresponding as 'personal palin' to other public officials using their office-accounts.
Not necessarily. It's important to note that there are three components in play here: personal, political, and government. Government resources are expressly enjoined from being used to send messages for partisan political purposes. The governor sending messages to contacts for political purposes could not be done lawfully from her governor@ account. Corresponding as 'personal palin' to public officials is the only lawful way to engage in these partisan activities. There's no way to tell from the addressee whether the content was political or governmental in nature. That's not to say either way whether these messages, if legitimate, are or are not appropriate. But just because the correspondence is "official" does not mean it's evasive.
Whether the download itself was legal or not cannot depend on things that happen after it.
It doesn't. The terms are in place from the beginning, available to review in advance. The reason the convention is to ask for assent between downloading and installation is because the copy only becomes fixed once downloaded, and possession of a copy is not coterminous with asserting ownership of a copy. Assent upon attempting use ensures that the person agreeing is asserting ownership.
Your point is taken that there would be zero question if assent was requested before downloading as well as agreement upon use, but that is why the terms of service of the website generally include compliance with license agreements as a condition of downloading.
Are you seriously arguing that one could enter a contract by the act of downloading a program without even clicking any OK in the process? I don't think so.
This is precisely how the GPL works: by distributing, you have agreed to the license granting you the right to distribute. It's not pretty, but it's how it works. You are making a distinction without a difference. If the download button contains terms of service, or declares that "by clicking 'Download' you agree to the {following|linked|above|incorporated by reference} terms, then that's how it works.
Warranty? Absent agreement there obviously won't be any. Liability, litigation? If I do something illegal with the program, I'll be liable in any case. Ditto patent license (which don't matter for noncommercial use anyway).
None of the above is accurate in the least.
1. Warranty is imputed by statute. You must disclaim implied warranties or they are assumed to be present.
2. Limitation of liability is for the copyright owner, not the user. Without caps, limits, or other mechanisms, you are open to a wide range of damages, and juries tend to return sizable awards.
3. Litigation agreements, e.g., choice of law, is a civil procedure issue, not a substantive issue.
4. Patent licenses are irrespective of noncommercial use. There is no fair use, personal use, or noncommercial use exception for patent infringement. If there is a patent on the software, the GPL requires the patent holder to give a royalty-free, nonexclusive license to all users of GPL software. The user must cite the GPL's protections if sued for patent infringement; they must establish that they received a license and that means invoking the GPL, because there is no compulsory license for this purpose at law. It also means that it can be used as evidence to support a counterclaim against the plaintiff, but that is an entirely different can of worms.
Downloading a file cannot by itself create a contract, and whether or not it is legal cannot be changed after the fact. So if you put a file up for download without requiring an explicit contract beforehand
Yes, but this scenario almost never occurs. Any given website has terms of use, governing the act of clicking on the download button in the first place. Whether or not it is legal most certainly can be changed after the fact; a license may be revoked, and legal possession does not preclude infringement. Illegal acquisition can be cured by license agreement and in fact is one of the most active areas of licensing law. It's the major element of most settlement negotiations.
Or if the download was illegal, it remains that way regardless of any contracts made afterwards.
No. It is entirely within the rights of the copyright holder to sanction any use and cure infringement by license. See above.
Yes, but only insofar as they refer to acts that the copyright holder has exclusive right to:
Yes, and among those exclusive rights are the right to make and to authorize copies and to distribute them, by any means they choose to do so. If they choose to make separate contractual requirements as a condition of acquisition, they are free to do so. Only once the owner has given his permission does a copy change hands.
Notice that "running" and "using" are not mentioned.
Because no restrictions are made on those actions. The lack of restrictions does not imply a lack of applicable terms, however, as, for the nth time, the warranty, liability, litigation, compulsory patent license, and conditional modification/distribution grant applies to everyone. Everyone is obligated to respect those terms, found expressly within the text of the license, and requiring acknowledgment.
When I buy a book, I don't need a license to read it. When I buy scissors, I don't need a license to use them.
When you purchase a copyright, you can apply the same argument. Up until that point, the acquisition of a copy gives you certain limited usage rights, and the copyright holder is free to condition that acquisition from the statutory understanding of a "sale". This is how they limit their liability, and also how they set prices, where applicable.
Yes, but only because those rights are exclusively granted to copyright holder. Running the program is not.
An obtuse and disconnected response. What you responded to has nothing to do with where the authorization to run the program comes from. All limitations, restrictions, and return promises must be made at t=0. You must give assent at that time to all of it. Refusal of the warranty disclaimer denies you a license; you have no right to use the software at that point, unless you want to be open to crushing liability. "If I acquire a work as an end user, but then later learn how to program and want to go back and exercise rights granted to me at t=0, the only way those restrictions can apply is if I gave assent at t=0." You don't get to go back in time, in other words. The grant occurred to all recipients, whether or not they choose to exercise it at that time, in the future, or not at all. The restrictions and disclaimers must also apply to all users at that time, or they are not enforceable.
Since you don't need a permission to run the program in the first place, that is irrelevant.
You can't run the program without lawful possession, and the copyright holder has exclusive rights to determine what possession to give you. This is the conceptual problem with your remarks. Once the copyright holder has given you the copy (with whatever terms, conditions, or caveats it may have), you have a statutory license to make your copy operate--but in no way is that an unlimited right. If the copy says "one computer only", they mean it. If the copy is for noncommercial use only, they mean it. If the copy is OEM for your Dell machine only, they mean it. Copyright law does not give you the authority to ignore license restrictions unless they are independently illegal.
Nope. Once you legally possess a piece of software, you can legally use it.
You're confusing two different issues here. The GPL specifies assent by performance. Those terms are valid and enforceable.
"Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance..." GPL v2, s.
"You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force." GPL v3, s2. That defines the scope of your usage rights.
It is sloppy to attempt to ill-define "acceptance" or to attempt to carve end users out of the equation, since the license is the major source of warranty, liability, and litigation information and by not including end users, there's a notice problem for those provisions. Further, the attempt to make the distinction has been roundly criticized within the legal community, and rightly so, as being irrelevant and political.
The license does impose restrictions on end users (in all caps, no less), and it would seek to use the document to uphold them should they be litigated. A court would rightly enforce them as being part of the terms under which the user attained the software. The "no acceptance" sentence makes no legal sense and is just a knee-jerk reaction to a misunderstood issue. As for actual users, accepting that there are no limits on use of the copyrighted work doesn't change the function or the intent of the GPL, but it must still happen as a legal reality. Otherwise, if I have not given assent to the license, then I don't have to recognize the limited liability or warranty disclaimer, because it's not good notice, and then I have a whole different ball game in court.
But any licenses you only discover after downloading can't alter the legality of your possession of the software, nor your right to run it.
That's not true. "Discovery" is not an acceptable standard in any jurisdiction.
Further, the only way to provide evidence of copyright infringement is to refer back to the license, whose terms must apply at acquisition. All of them. You must show that the restrictions were in place from the beginning, and of course they are. If I acquire a work as an end user, but then later learn how to program and want to go back and exercise rights granted to me at t=0, the only way those restrictions can apply is if I gave assent at t=0. This is also why the license must be conveyed with the copies--so everyone is aware of the restrictions placed on them.
"The act of running the Program is not restricted" appears in Section 0 under the Terms--this text is essential information. Were your interpretation understood to be correct, this kind of notification would be superfluous, and in accordance with the rules of interpretation, all words are deemed to have value.
What would a judge say about paying 50$ for a box?
Nothing at all, because judges do not consider the adequacy of consideration except in special circumstances. You have an article, worth $50. You can consume the article by opening it and engaging the license, or you can transfer the article, still worth $50, to another party.
There's an idea called the "Meeting of the Minds", that even applies in a box store. You THINK you're buying X, but according to you, you're buying a box that a EULA can disclaim all liability.
You're confusing yourself here with your utter lack of legal knowledge. Meeting of the minds has nothing to do with consideration, and it has nothing to do with the purchase of an article. You think you are buying and you are buying the same thing. The retailer doesn't have the authority to license anything to you under copyright; they only have the authority to sell you an article. Consider a prepaid SIM card. The retailer is selling you a piece of plastic. $100 though it may be, it's just the sale of an article on the shelf. The value of the article is in a contractual agreement, through which use of someone else's property is established.
So ALL used-CD stores are illegal? Or are used DVD stores illegal?
Thats right... THEY ARENT. Stop spreading lies and uncertainty.
One thing has nothing to do with the other. There is nothing unlawful about used music/movie stores, or about selling your complete interest in a software product. Stop spreading lies and uncertainty, indeed.
What exactly is the vehicle of copyright?
License, whether vested statutorily, by grant, or by agreement. What form that takes depends on the work and the author.
Copyright serves to screw over people with honest actions and intentions.[...]That's why Im an encourager of piracy.
QED.
What promotion of useful arts does a 150+ year term on copyrights serve?
The production of further works. It's quite clearly a success, given the number of works released under copyright today. Copyright was never intended to benefit contemporaries, but to seed for society's future use. Society values artists and entertainers, but as you've deftly demonstrated, will not voluntarily support the volumes we desire.
You don't have to like copyright. When you create something, you can feel free to be far more permissive with the terms under which you share it. But you don't get to make that choice for someone else, and consumers don't get to make that choice for producers of art.
Legal posession happened when I paid for my copy at the register.
Not legal possession of the right to use a copyrighted work, but legal possession of a box. The only legal possession of copyrighted works at that point are what's printed on the box. The work is not fixed in the box, and so anything packaged with the copy, that is, the disc, comes as a package deal.
DFS gives you the full power to sell or transfer that box and its contents. But as long as the package remains sealed, all you've got is the option to assert ownership of a copy.
If this puzzles you, consider the following scenario. You are accused of copyright infringement, say unlawful reproduction of a software work. You cannot present a sealed box as evidence in your defense, because a sealed box doesn't give you any copyright interest in the software product tucked inside.
Any contract presented after that is without consideration.
Well, since the contract was in the box from the beginning, it's not really a problem. More to the point, though, the timing or indeed the presentation of terms are irrelevant to the issue of consideration. There is no rule that you be presented with terms at all; only that they be made available to you upon request to review in advance. It's your responsibility to know what you're purchasing, and with the wealth of information and opportunities beforehand, not to mention course of trade and decades of industry practice, you'll find little sympathy. It is not possible to say that you felt that the price included an unrestricted copy with no additional terms.