Jim Henderson wrote:
> Are you?

Pretty sure. IANAL.

>  I've not heard that one before, I would think that might open 
> the person making the modifications up to being prosecuted under DMCA.

It depends on whether it was done to enable access to the work or to enable 
copying of the work, I think. IANAL. :-)

>> It's a global market. People have to learn to suck it up.
> 
> That's why these days we don't "buy" products, we "license" them.  The 
> ownership stays with the seller and any use that violates the terms of 
> the license voids the license and your right to use the product.

This is also incorrect. Copywrite v. Prolock showed that federal copyright 
laws override state licensing laws, at least in the USA. If your product is 
copyrighted, you can't use a contract to override the fair use rights.

> I disagree with this model very strongly.  The laws in Germany prohibit 
> this type of license - if you pay for something, you bought it, and the 
> vendor can't restrict you from doing things to what you bought.  So I'm 
> told by people who live there, anyways.

Same here. People just don't believe it, tho. Not because the laws are 
written that way, but because federal copyright overrides state licenses.

I haven't studied the DMCA enough to know what's going on there, but it's 
still going to override licenses.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message