On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:52:06 -0400, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:

> It's entirely legal (again, DMCA not withstanding).

I would like to see a reference for that, though - because I've never 
heard this before Darren mentioned it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:4a28189c$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:52:06 -0400, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:
>
>> It's entirely legal (again, DMCA not withstanding).
>
> I would like to see a reference for that, though - because I've never
> heard this before Darren mentioned it.
>

If we can agree that it's essentially reverse engineering, then: 
http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi#QID195

However, decompiling computer software may not legally be defined as reverse 
engineering, so it's less clear.  Nevertheless, DMCA aside, it has never 
been illegal to do anything you want to any copyrighted work, short of 
copying and/or distributing content.  If you buy a Steve King book and add 
your own chapters, it's not illegal until you begin distributing the book 
along with your changes.  Additionally, it's not illegal to sell copies of 
solely your addtions.  Nevertheless, if you sucessfully began selling your 
additions, you would likely get the pants sued off of you, because while you 
did not commit a crime, you have opened yourself up to a civil tort.

Post a reply to this message

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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:52:06 -0400, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:
> 
>> It's entirely legal (again, DMCA not withstanding).
> 
> I would like to see a reference for that, though - because I've never 
> heard this before Darren mentioned it.

Copywrite v. Prolock.

-- 
   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

Warp wrote:
>   Isn't discrimination against customers based on their country of origin
> illegal in most places? I think some people call that "racism" (even though
> it's not the technically correct term).

Now *that* would be an interesting lawsuit in the USA.  Especially since in 
most cases it's illegal to discriminate based on "country of origin" (i.e., 
ethnicity).

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Isn't discrimination against customers based on their country of origin
> > illegal in most places? I think some people call that "racism" (even though
> > it's not the technically correct term).

> Now *that* would be an interesting lawsuit in the USA.  Especially since in 
> most cases it's illegal to discriminate based on "country of origin" (i.e., 
> ethnicity).

  Yeah, certainly if there was some physical shop which refused to sell
anything to anyone coming from eg. the middle-East or Africa, that would
certainly cause a huge commotion and a bunch of lawsuits. But seemingly
online stores are exempt from this law, for some reason? Exactly what is
this based on?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Exactly the reason I have never considered buying an iPod ( well thats not 
true, strictly speaking. My son has one...) I have always opted for a plain 
ol' mp3 player. The one I have now is the best I've had. I bought it 
refurbed. It has a monochrome text screen and a 30GB harddrive. Putting 
songs on it is as easy as copying them to a jumpdrive. iTunes? I have no use 
for it. ( The app does do a very good job at making audion CDs though.)

-- 

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Yeah, certainly if there was some physical shop which refused to sell
> anything to anyone coming from eg. the middle-East or Africa, that would
> certainly cause a huge commotion and a bunch of lawsuits. But seemingly
> online stores are exempt from this law, for some reason? Exactly what is
> this based on?

I'm not sure if the US's laws based on ethnicity (i.e., your ancestors were 
from there) or based on citizenship.  I mean, I know many 
anti-discrimination laws disallow discrimination based on ethnicity. I just 
don't know if you're allowed to say "I don't sell to South Africans 
regardless of skin color" for example. It would make an interesting lawsuit.

We had one in California I think it was... the community (aka "home-owner's 
association", the group responsible for maintaining the local roads, local 
parks, paying for trash collection, etc) had passed regulations that you 
weren't allowed to sell the house to lawyers, because lawyers sue too much. 
A lawyer tried to buy, wasn't allowed to, and sued. Interestingly, it was 
upheld because profession isn't one of the things you're disallowed from 
discriminating against.

-- 
   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

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:21:20 -0400, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:

> Nevertheless, DMCA aside, it has
> never been illegal to do anything you want to any copyrighted work,

Any copyrighted work that you purchase a copy of.  That's why software 
companies tend to not sell you the software, but a license to use the 
software.  It's my understanding that the licensing agreement is intended 
to be what it is you are purchasing, the media included notwithstanding.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:20:58 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:52:06 -0400, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:
>> 
>>> It's entirely legal (again, DMCA not withstanding).
>> 
>> I would like to see a reference for that, though - because I've never
>> heard this before Darren mentioned it.
> 
> Copywrite v. Prolock.

Are you talking about Vault v. Quaid Software Ltd?  (Vault made software 
called Prolock that was used to provide copy protection of computer 
software)

I don't know that that is applicable here, partly because the case in 
question predates the DMCA (which would supercede, I believe, but like 
you IANAL).  In the case I cited above, Quaid Software licensed Prolock 
for the purpose of defeating Prolock's copy protection features.

But the fifth Circuit Cort of Appeals did hold that the license 
agreement's provisions were unenforceable because federal copyright law 
pre-empted the Louisiana License Act.

That would seem to set a precedent that federal law trumps state law; 
DMCA, being a federal law, prohibits reverse engineering, and whether you 
or I or anyone likes the DMCA, it is a current law on the books that 
specifically prohibits circumventing technological measures put in place 
to prevent illegal copies from being made.

Jim

Post a reply to this message