"Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote in message
news:4a27d620@news.povray.org...

> > Philosophical question: Are we entitled to be able to have access to any
> > art
> > on any device so long as it technically possible? Do not the decisions
of
> > a
> > vendor/copyright holder count for anything, even when they may be
> > perceived
> > as arbitrary?

> If I offer something for sale, I would have absolutely no expectations
> regarding to whom I could or could not sell it.
> "Hi.  I want to buy a recording from you."
> "Ok, but are you black?  Do you live in China?  Are you a homosexual?  If
> you've answered 'yes' to any of these questions, I won't sell it to you."

I think there are anti-discriminatory laws to cover some of that. But
regional sales is another matter, as is platform sales. I, as a vendor, may
chose not to make my software install/register on W2K, even though it may
technically run there. Does that mean a W2K user has free pass to patch the
XP version to bypass installation/registration? Likewise, a music vendor may
only release a track on CD audio. Does that mean others have free pass to
convert it to MP3 to play on their MP3 players?

> But the real problem with this argument is the implication that the
artists
> (copyright holders) have actually determined that they do not want to sell
> their music outside of Japan.  They haven't.  The music industry has made
> this decision for them, so that they can maintain greater control over
> pricing within various markets, and in so doing, they are actually denying
> the artists the money that they could otherwise obtain easily.

Hence I used the term "arbitrary" to describe the decision. I don't wish to
discuss whether we think the decision is good or bad, or who it benefits.
There may be very complex reasonings behind it, or it might be a fluke.
Shouldn't it be respected nonetheless?

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay escreveu:
> In an alternate universe, here's how things could have gone:
> "Dad, I want that song."
> "Ok honey, let's check iTunes...  It's not on the iTunes US site, but they 
> say that for $2.99, we can download it from iTunes in Japan.  Let's just pay 
> $2.99 for it."
> "Thank you father!  I love you so much!  And I love my iPod too!"
> "Me too, honey.  Me too..."
> *Hugs* 

yeah, shame Jobs is such a control freak.  Perhaps that's why he got the 
disease...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:35:26 -0400, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:

> Ok, so let's get this thing on my daughter's iPod Shuffle.  I plug it
> into my computer at work, where I downloaded the mp3, I start up iTunes
> and try to copy the mp3 to it.  Uh, I can't.  Why?  Because that iPod is
> synchronized with another computer.  Which computer?  One that was in my
> basement, which recently got flooded.  But all the songs are on the
> iPod, so can't I just copy them off onto this computer, then put them
> back on? HAHAHAHA  Yeah, right!  If they allowed that, well, then you
> could distribute music ILLEGALLY!  OMG!!!  IT MUST BE PREVENTED!!!

I don't know if Windows can use it, but from Linux I use gnupod and it 
doesn't care about the iPod being paired with one and only one computer.

It's a couple of perl scripts, so in theory it might work with Windows if 
you install ActiveState Perl.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Does that mean a W2K user has free pass to patch the
> XP version to bypass installation/registration?

I think it does, in the USA, yes. You're allowed to make modifications to 
something to get around compatibility problems.

> Likewise, a music vendor may
> only release a track on CD audio. Does that mean others have free pass to
> convert it to MP3 to play on their MP3 players?

I think it does, in the USA, for the same reason as above.

> Shouldn't it be respected nonetheless?

No. First Sale doctrine says that when you buy it, it's yours to do with as 
you like. In particular, you're not allowed to stop me from taking it to a 
different country and selling it for more. The "you're not allowed to buy 
it" is an attempt to get around that right, as is region-code locking.

It's a global market. People have to learn to suck it up.

-- 
   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

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4a27f221@news.povray.org...
>
> Well, in Argentina CDs cost about three times less than in the US. If 
> iTunes
> music store was opened here with their current US prices, *nobody* would
> buy. If they opened here and adjusted their prices, then they would have 
> to
> take measures to avoid US citizens from setting their country to Argentina
> and pay 3x less. (= get 3x less ripped off than usual)
>

Certainly, it's all about price controls.  But the point is that I would 
have been willing to pay any reasonable price, but it's simply not for sale 
to me, even if I was physically in Japan while trying to download it for 5 
times the price.

Perhaps I should get a VISA gift card, then proclaim that I live in Japan. 
I don't think they could/would try to prove otherwise at that point.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:42:04 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> somebody wrote:
>> Does that mean a W2K user has free pass to patch the XP version to
>> bypass installation/registration?
> 
> I think it does, in the USA, yes. You're allowed to make modifications
> to something to get around compatibility problems.

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

>> Shouldn't it be respected nonetheless?
> 
> No. First Sale doctrine says that when you buy it, it's yours to do with
> as you like. In particular, you're not allowed to stop me from taking it
> to a different country and selling it for more. The "you're not allowed
> to buy it" is an attempt to get around that right, as is region-code
> locking.
> 
> 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.

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a280771@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > Does that mean a W2K user has free pass to patch the
> > XP version to bypass installation/registration?

> I think it does, in the USA, yes. You're allowed to make modifications to
> something to get around compatibility problems.

Are you positive of that? How is it a "compatibility problem" if I, as a
vendor, explicitly take measures so it doesn't install or legally register
on a platform and make it known that it doesn't?

By that token of "compatibility problem", (and should it be feasible), I
could take a Mac application, decompile it, and compile it for Windows. I
somehow doubt that's legal.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Well, in Argentina CDs cost about three times less than in the US. If iTunes
> music store was opened here with their current US prices, *nobody* would
> buy. If they opened here and adjusted their prices, then they would have to
> take measures to avoid US citizens from setting their country to Argentina
> and pay 3x less. (= get 3x less ripped off than usual)

  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).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:4a281112$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:42:04 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> somebody wrote:
>>> Does that mean a W2K user has free pass to patch the XP version to
>>> bypass installation/registration?
>>
>> I think it does, in the USA, yes. You're allowed to make modifications
>> to something to get around compatibility problems.
>
> Are you?  I've not heard that one before, I would think that might open
> the person making the modifications up to being prosecuted under DMCA.
>
Yes, and then Yes.  Hence the trouble with the DMCA, and why it may 
ultimately fail if properly challenged.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:48:41 -0400, Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a281112$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:42:04 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> somebody wrote:
>>>> Does that mean a W2K user has free pass to patch the XP version to
>>>> bypass installation/registration?
>>>
>>> I think it does, in the USA, yes. You're allowed to make modifications
>>> to something to get around compatibility problems.
>>
>> Are you?  I've not heard that one before, I would think that might open
>> the person making the modifications up to being prosecuted under DMCA.
>>
> Yes, and then Yes.  Hence the trouble with the DMCA, and why it may
> ultimately fail if properly challenged.

I can't wait for that day, but don't want to be the one to challenge it, 
either.  There have been some minor challenges to it IIRC, but nothing 
really overwhelming (ISTR hearing about one challenge about accessibility 
for DRM'ed protected PDFs or something like that).

Jim

Post a reply to this message