On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:09:49 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>> Well, yes, federal laws override state licensing laws, but it would be
>> difficult to show that cracking a program hard-coded to require Windows
>> XP to run on Win2K is "fair use" of the work.
> 
> I don't know. You bought it. You're cracking your own copy. Etc.  You
> haven't done anything to reduce the protection of the software itself.

That's ultimately the question though - did you buy it, or did you buy a 
license that says you can use it?  US law is unclear about this (unlike 
German law, which I understand isn't - you bought it, period.  It's 
apparently not legal to even do shrinkwrap licensing in Germany, and it's 
been tried in court definitively there from what I understand).

>> That's why decss (and its derivatives) and things like ConvertLIT (an
>> e- book format converter to convert Microsoft's .lit format to other
>> e-book formats while stripping the license enforcement portions from
>> the file) are considered to technically be illegal in the US.
> 
> I think they're illegal to distribute, because they can be used to
> circumvent the copy protection on the files. I'm not so sure they're
> illegal to use on media you yourself bought a copy of.

Could be.  Of course, if it's illegal to distribute the software, that 
makes it kinda hard to obtain legally to use on media you legally own.

Of course, part of the way of working around that is to distribute as 
source, again something that's never been challenged in court:

>> But that's never been challenged in court.
> 
> Exactly. It's all grey here.

Yup.

>> Yes, but I think a license agreement on software these days isn't a
>> state license.
> 
> Sure it is. Federal law doesn't have contract law enforcement in it.
> Contracts are state laws.

I'm getting out of my depth here, but it seems to me that federal law 
would have *something* about contracts in it.

>> In the Prolock case, if the license was intended to be enforced using
>> state licensing laws rather than federal licensing/intellectual
>> property laws, then it was a very poorly designed license indeed,
>> because it would require that the license be written to be enforceable
>> in every locality.
> 
> Yep. That's why licenses always have a choice of venue clause.

Makes sense to me.

>>> I haven't studied the DMCA enough to know what's going on there, but
>>> it's still going to override licenses.
>> 
>> Well, yes, except that the DMCA does provide software developers with
>> something that is enforceable to prevent illegal copying.
> 
> Again, "illegal" copying. First you have to determine if making the copy
> was illegal. *Then* you have a case. :-)

True, that makes sense to me.  I think it depends a lot on whether you 
can get *any* copying defined as being illegal under the terms of the 
license, but that brings us back to the license-as-state-law-only point 
of the discussion, and my head is starting to hurt. :-)

>> One of the problems with the fair use doctrine (as I understand it) is
>> that it's not really codified as to what constitutes fair use.  For
>> example, in a video production, does 30 seconds constitute fair use?  2
>> minutes?  20 minutes?  There's no real legal definition for what fair
>> use is, it just seems to be a case of "I'll know a violation of fair
>> use when I see it", which isn't a legal definition by any stretch.  The
>> law tends to be very specific, sometimes overly so.
> 
> Yep. Agreed. I suspect a lot of content producers want it that way, too.

Yes, it does seem that way.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's ultimately the question though - did you buy it, or did you buy a 
> license that says you can use it?

Yes. And does the license specifically deny me the ability to patch the 
software to run it on a different OS?   If you're going to argue you only 
licensed it to me and that copyright fair use shouldn't apply, you don't get 
to argue that it's copyrighted too. :-)  *Everything* has to be in the license.

> Could be.  Of course, if it's illegal to distribute the software, that 
> makes it kinda hard to obtain legally to use on media you legally own.

Not if you wrote it. Also, it depends on what's "software". Remember the 
whole PGP-printed-in-a-book argument? DeCSS printed on t-shirts?

> I'm getting out of my depth here, but it seems to me that federal law 
> would have *something* about contracts in it.

I don't think the Constitution says anything about intrastate contracts. Of 
course, not being in the Constitution never stopped anyone before. At least 
not lately.

-- 
   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 16:03:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Right. That's why I said "DMCA notwithstanding".
> 
> Problem is, we can't choose to ignore DMCA.  I'm not sure I follow you 
> here.

I meant my opinion/analysis was "DMCA notwithstanding."  Not that the actual 
law is. I.e., I don't know enough about DMCA to say how it might have 
changed the landscape, so if you ignore the DMCA, then what I said is valid. :-)

> But in the case you put forth, use of a program that is restricted in 
> platform through technological means is not use of the program "as 
> intended".  I guess part of the question is "intended by whom?".

True, true. Again, hard to say.

> Taking Jeremy's suggested idea, I purchase a program that's developed to 
> run on the Mac, but I don't have a Mac.  If my intention is the important 
> one and my intention is to run it on a Linux-based PC, would it be legal 
> for me to reverse-engineer the program in order to recompile it to run on 
> Linux?  I would seriously doubt that, and I think a challenge on that 
> basis would ultimately fail in court.

Sure. But this is the argument made by DeCSS authors: Nobody had a license 
to play the legally-purchased DVD on a Linux machine, so they circumvented 
the protection to make that possible. Of course, distributing a program that 
not only played the disk but made it possible to copy it was the bigger 
problem, I think. Makes it hard to separate out the different concerns in 
the court cases.

-- 
   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).

	One of the tragedies of modern (all) times is that everything that is
racist is considered wrong, and lots of prejudices aren't properly
addressed simply because they're not technically racist.

-- 
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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?

	I think the analogy (in general) is invalid.

	Likely, if you're an American visiting Japan, and try to buy something
from a store, they'll sell it regardless of citizenship.

	Online purchases (probably) have slightly different legal implications.
Sales tax being one of them.

	There may be an issue of export control. In the physical case, it's not
the shop owner's job to ask whether you'll be taking it abroad. If you
then return to the US with it, you may violate Japanese/international
laws, but the shop owner won't have.

	In the online world, the retailer may be considered to actually have
delivered the product abroad. Then he becomes liable.

	Anyone over here ever bought any of those much cheaper "international"
textbooks? The ones from India explicitly say something like "Cannot be
sold outside of India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka". I
believe I've seen some Korean books with similar large print. Now I
could physically go and buy the book there and bring it with me. Don't
know if I'll be breaking a law (I'm not selling...).

	I happen to have bought all of mine domestically in the US. Likely
someone bought them from India/Korea, brought them to the US, and resold
them - which may be illegal for him to do so.

	In case anyone is wondering - those books are not pirated or anything.
They're licensed by the original publishers to those countries (cheaper
quality paper, etc). They're much cheaper over there (easily 15x
cheaper). Likely the license terms are that they not be sold abroad -
particularly back to the US. The reasoning makes sense.

-- 
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Likely the license terms are that they not be sold abroad -
> particularly back to the US. The reasoning makes sense.

Then the question becomes who is violating the license, and when?

Can the publisher enforce on me a contract by printing it inside the book? 
Am I required by US law to uphold a contract in India? Are you breaking 
Indian law by buying a book in the US sold to you in the US?

-- 
   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 16:58:56 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:03:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Right. That's why I said "DMCA notwithstanding".
>> 
>> Problem is, we can't choose to ignore DMCA.  I'm not sure I follow you
>> here.
> 
> I meant my opinion/analysis was "DMCA notwithstanding."  Not that the
> actual law is. I.e., I don't know enough about DMCA to say how it might
> have changed the landscape, so if you ignore the DMCA, then what I said
> is valid. :-)

Oh, I see - makes sense now.

>> Taking Jeremy's suggested idea, I purchase a program that's developed
>> to run on the Mac, but I don't have a Mac.  If my intention is the
>> important one and my intention is to run it on a Linux-based PC, would
>> it be legal for me to reverse-engineer the program in order to
>> recompile it to run on Linux?  I would seriously doubt that, and I
>> think a challenge on that basis would ultimately fail in court.
> 
> Sure. But this is the argument made by DeCSS authors: Nobody had a
> license to play the legally-purchased DVD on a Linux machine, so they
> circumvented the protection to make that possible. Of course,
> distributing a program that not only played the disk but made it
> possible to copy it was the bigger problem, I think. Makes it hard to
> separate out the different concerns in the court cases.

Well, that also assumes, though, that it's legal to play the disc back on 
whatever device you have if it has a DVD reader.

But the play/copy argument is something I've had at work (for that 
matter), electronic distribution of training materials where you've put 
some restriction on it using technological means to prevent copying 
doesn't work because most modern OSes don't distinguish between "open to 
read" and "open to copy" (since "open to copy" implies "open to read").  
That's where the whole CSS copy protection (and most if not all others) 
fall down - in that if you can open something to use it legally, someone 
will find a way to do so to make a copy of it.

And ultimately, of course, trying to put a restriction on it like that 
inconveniences legitimate users but those who are determined will find a 
way around it.  The whole idea of copy protection (and consequent 
litigation ala RIAA and MPAA) is problematic from a technological 
standpoint for this reason.  The ones that *AA need to go after aren't 
the casual downloaders, but those who actually *profit* by selling 
illegal copies of the content - like the street vendors common in many 
urban areas (I hear about ones in New York, for example, but don't know 
how much of that is urban legend and how much is actually happening).  
Those are the people cutting into the profits.  The 7 year old who 
downloads 20 or 30 tracks using a Bittorrent client probably wasn't going 
to buy the product anyways.  But the guy who purchases an illegally made 
copy of the disc from a street vendor *is* paying for the product and 
cutting the artist (and the *AA folks, though they're of less concern to 
me because they don't really add any value, just cost IMHO) out of the 
profits.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:55:22 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's ultimately the question though - did you buy it, or did you buy
>> a license that says you can use it?
> 
> Yes. And does the license specifically deny me the ability to patch the
> software to run it on a different OS?   

Depends on the license, but I could see that a license could allow "only 
these specific uses and all other uses are prohibited".  That kind of 
legalese is commonly used so people don't circumvent it by being creative.

> If you're going to argue you
> only licensed it to me and that copyright fair use shouldn't apply, you
> don't get to argue that it's copyrighted too. :-)  *Everything* has to
> be in the license.

Well, yes, but "everything" can be included in the "no other use is 
permitted" language.  So, for example, the license could read that "you 
are permitted to install the software on one computer at a time, and 
execution of that program is permitted only on the system it is installed 
on for the purpose of using the program for its intended purpose as 
outlined in the product documentation.  Any other use is strictly 
prohibited under the terms of this license."

>> Could be.  Of course, if it's illegal to distribute the software, that
>> makes it kinda hard to obtain legally to use on media you legally own.
> 
> Not if you wrote it. Also, it depends on what's "software". Remember the
> whole PGP-printed-in-a-book argument? DeCSS printed on t-shirts?

Oh yes, I do remember those - I wanted one of those DeCSS T-Shirts, in 
fact, but never got around to purchasing one.

>> I'm getting out of my depth here, but it seems to me that federal law
>> would have *something* about contracts in it.
> 
> I don't think the Constitution says anything about intrastate contracts.
> Of course, not being in the Constitution never stopped anyone before. At
> least not lately.

Well, the US Constitution isn't the only document that outlines federal 
law, either.  That said, there are a lot of weird things that cover 
interstate commerce which is governed by federal law, but I think it'd be 
trivial to demonstrate that a piece of software produced in one locality 
can be sold in any locality and thus the terms of the license should fall 
under federal jurisdiction rather than state jurisdiction.  Not being 
familiar with the details of the Prologic case, I'm not sure why they 
didn't use that argument (or why it didn't work if they did use it).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> 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?

But what if (for example) you need to pay and do a lot of admin work to 
legally sell in China?  And your work, for whatever reason, has little 
demand from China?  What then when someone from China calls to buy your 
work?

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a2812bd@news.povray.org...
> 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).

If you are going to argue that, isn't it racism to have national borders?
Even state lines?

Post a reply to this message

>  I really fail to see the logic in this business model. If someone wants
> to buy a piece of music, why should it matter where he lives?

The logic is that the distributers tailor their content for each region to 
reduce costs.  It would be a big waste of resources (for very little return) 
to make available every piece of music worldwide that was even a bit popular 
to every country.

What might be a good idea is a "no results found, would you like to search 
international stores?", and then inform you that download times might be 
longer because it's not coming from your regional server.  But again, would 
it be profitable to set up such a system?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, yes, but "everything" can be included in the "no other use is 
> permitted" language. 

True.

> Oh yes, I do remember those - I wanted one of those DeCSS T-Shirts, in 
> fact, but never got around to purchasing one.

I think I still have the one with PGP encoded as barcodes on it. I was 
actually involved in a company helping to fund the legal fund for that one.

> I'm not sure why they 
> didn't use that argument (or why it didn't work if they did use it).

In part, they wanted the Louisiana venue because it was Napoleanic, and 
hence much friendlier to the attacking party. One defendant was in 
California and the other in Ontario or some such, IIRC, but they brought 
suit in Lousiana based on both companies having customers in Louisiana.

-- 
   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

scott wrote:
> It would be a big waste of resources (for very little 
> return) to make available every piece of music worldwide that was even a 
> bit popular to every country.

Not on the internet. At least, not if you discount the costs imposed by 
countries wanting to collect their taxes and such.

It's no harder for me to download a track from Japan than the US, and no 
harder for them to sell it, except to the extent they may need to go thru 
the hassle of getting a US sales tax collection thing, pay US taxes on 
income, and so on.  If the governments got out of the way and just taxed 
their own citizens, it wouldn't cost any more.

-- 
   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

> Woops.  I began to suspect that I might be wrong here.  If I was in Japan, 
> then I would, in fact, not be able to download songs from the US.  Plus, 
> they say that they check your country of origin to make sure that it 
> corresponds to your address.  So...  If I happen to be living in Japan for 
> 3 months, without a permanent address, I would be forbidden from 
> downloading anything from any iTunes?  Sigh...

It just seems that some companies are very shortsighted and do not consider 
that people go abroad for periods of time.

For example I had this with a Poker website, because all my bank details are 
from my UK address but my IP address is in Germany.  They basically didn't 
want my business.  They even froze my account after I had won some money. 
In the end I just gave up trying to talk to them.  Have been using a 
different site since then and had no problems whatsoever.

Even the UK driving licensing agency can't cope.  A UK driving license is an 
EU license, so is valid to use and keep in any EU country (no need to 
change).  However, they won't let you change your address to a non-UK one! 
So when I called to ask what I should do (as I was moving to Germany) they 
suggested I change the address to a friend or relative in the UK that could 
forward any mail!

Post a reply to this message

>  Isn't discrimination against customers based on their country of origin
> illegal in most places?

Yes, but it's only discrimination if there is no reason for it, and in most 
cases you can come up with a reason.

Post a reply to this message

>> It would be a big waste of resources (for very little return) to make 
>> available every piece of music worldwide that was even a bit popular to 
>> every country.
>
> Not on the internet.

Surely to store, index and deliver every song in the world on each iTunes 
server is going to cost more than just the "locally selected" catalogue?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Interestingly, it was 
> upheld because profession isn't one of the things you're disallowed from 
> discriminating against.

  That sounds quite unconstitutional. Well at least by our constitution.

  Here you can't discriminate against anyone without a very good reason
which can be justified. Refusing to sell a house to someone because he is
a lawyer is certainly not such a good reason.

  (One could ask what would be a "very good reason which can be justified"
to discriminate against anyone. Well, one good example is movie casting:
If the movie needs a young man for a role, it's logical that they would
hire a young man, rather than an old woman.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> If you are going to argue that, isn't it racism to have national borders?
> Even state lines?

  There is a difference between refusing to sell something to someone
because of his nationality, and immigration issues.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Interestingly, it was 
>> upheld because profession isn't one of the things you're disallowed from 
>> discriminating against.
> 
>   That sounds quite unconstitutional. Well at least by our constitution.
> 
>   Here you can't discriminate against anyone without a very good reason
> which can be justified. Refusing to sell a house to someone because he is
> a lawyer is certainly not such a good reason.

	It wasn't really that they didn't want lawyers. They just wanted the
best ones. As he couldn't win the court case, he was rejected.

-- 
Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Likely the license terms are that they not be sold abroad -
>> particularly back to the US. The reasoning makes sense.
> 
> Then the question becomes who is violating the license, and when?

	The person who sold it to me (online). Occasionally, these books are
shipped from abroad, but most of the time they're being sold within the
US. Either way, the seller knows where he's shipping to.

> Can the publisher enforce on me a contract by printing it inside the
> book? Am I required by US law to uphold a contract in India? Are you
> breaking Indian law by buying a book in the US sold to you in the US?

1. At least for the Indian books, it's usually listed either on the
front or back cover. Don't recall for the Korean ones...

2. That's why I said I don't know the legal implications. It's a
violation in Indian law, but I don't know about US law.

3. I doubt it. The condition says "not to be sold", not "not to be
bought". I wasn't informed in advance that there was a condition on it,
so I don't see why I should be liable. The sites do say "international
edition", but they don't say from which country and under what
agreements. In the old days (i.e. early 2000's<G>), such books usually
meant paperbacks from Europe (with no such terms written on them) - so I
can claim lack of knowledge...

-- 
Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>> If you are going to argue that, isn't it racism to have national borders?
>> Even state lines?
> 
>   There is a difference between refusing to sell something to someone
> because of his nationality, and immigration issues.

	And then there are export restrictions.

	Also, I haven't seen this in the thread so far (and haven't read the
whole thread): A movie may be released on DVD in one market earlier than
another. It makes sense to control selling it based on market (this is,
albeit, not strictly based on nationality). In the original offending
case (Jeremy's), isn't it possible that the song will be released in his
market later on?

-- 
Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:33:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>> Oh yes, I do remember those - I wanted one of those DeCSS T-Shirts, in
>> fact, but never got around to purchasing one.
> 
> I think I still have the one with PGP encoded as barcodes on it. I was
> actually involved in a company helping to fund the legal fund for that
> one.

Cool, I like that.

>> I'm not sure why they
>> didn't use that argument (or why it didn't work if they did use it).
> 
> In part, they wanted the Louisiana venue because it was Napoleanic, and
> hence much friendlier to the attacking party. One defendant was in
> California and the other in Ontario or some such, IIRC, but they brought
> suit in Lousiana based on both companies having customers in Louisiana.

Oh, don't even get me started on venue-shopping.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> For example I had this with a Poker website, because all my bank details 
> are from my UK address but my IP address is in Germany. 

You would be *amazed* at the level of fraud with online gambling sites.

-- 
   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:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Interestingly, it was 
>> upheld because profession isn't one of the things you're disallowed from 
>> discriminating against.
> 
>   That sounds quite unconstitutional. Well at least by our constitution.

Could be, yes.  In the US, anti-discrimination laws list the features for 
which you're not allowed to discriminate. For example

"The Fair Housing Act declares a national policy of fair housing throughout 
the United States. The law makes illegal any discrimination in the sale, 
lease or rental of housing, or making housing otherwise unavailable, because 
of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin."

"The Equal Credit Opportunity Act makes discrimination unlawful with respect 
to any aspect of a credit application on the basis of race, color, religion, 
national origin, sex, marital status, age or because all or part of the 
applicant's income derives from any public assistance program."

So technically, you're allowed to tell someone they're not allowed to buy a 
house in the retirement community if they're only 25 years old, for example, 
because age isn't one of the "protected categories."

>   Here you can't discriminate against anyone without a very good reason
> which can be justified. Refusing to sell a house to someone because he is
> a lawyer is certainly not such a good reason.

You could argue it is. Having a lawyer in the community is expensive, 
because they get free legal advice. Indeed, that was why the rule was 
instituted: everyone living there voted to exclude lawyers so they wouldn't 
have to pay for frivolous lawsuits.

We had a similar problem here: the community had planned to add a 
playground. We knew it a year before our house was done being built, and 
signed all kinds of papers saying we knew it and accepted it. The house near 
the playground was finished six months after we moved in.  A lawyer bought 
it, and within a month had filed a lawsuit to try to stop the playground 
from being built.

>   (One could ask what would be a "very good reason which can be justified"
> to discriminate against anyone. Well, one good example is movie casting:
> If the movie needs a young man for a role, it's logical that they would
> hire a young man, rather than an old woman.)

Here we've even had lawsuits where men sued because they couldn't get hired 
to work at a topless restaurant. (I.e., a "hooters" type place.)

I always wondered what would happen if a black man sued some group like the 
KKK for not hiring him as a receptionist or some such. Would that be "fair"?

-- 
   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:
> 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.

Note that no free software* in the world can currently interact with the
music database of devices running iPhone OS 2.0 or later.

* (I didn't say "freeware", I mean it in the FSF way; although I doubt there
is any proprietary-but-gratis software that can do it, either)

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>> Likely the license terms are that they not be sold abroad -
>>> particularly back to the US. The reasoning makes sense.
>> Then the question becomes who is violating the license, and when?
> 
> 	The person who sold it to me (online). Occasionally, these books are
> shipped from abroad, but most of the time they're being sold within the
> US. Either way, the seller knows where he's shipping to.

But you're saying the seller is in the US also? Sure, if he's in India and 
mailing you books to the US, I can see that. I was talking about the people 
who buy them in India, carry them to the US, and then sell them to others in 
the US. Potentially someone without any contract with the original publisher.

I imagine the book store has a contract with the original publisher in which 
they agree not to sell them overseas. That's a bit different than what I'm 
talking about.

>> Can the publisher enforce on me a contract by printing it inside the
>> book? Am I required by US law to uphold a contract in India? Are you
>> breaking Indian law by buying a book in the US sold to you in the US?
> 
> 1. At least for the Indian books, it's usually listed either on the
> front or back cover. Don't recall for the Korean ones...

Whichever. The point is that for it to be a contract, I have to agree to it. 
You can't just print something and say "Ha, gotcha!"

> 2. That's why I said I don't know the legal implications. It's a
> violation in Indian law, but I don't know about US law.

Yeah, that's what I was asking. You'd have to have a specific law in the US, 
not just some random pseudo-contract printed on the outside of the book.

> 3. I doubt it. The condition says "not to be sold", not "not to be
> bought". I wasn't informed in advance that there was a condition on it,
> so I don't see why I should be liable.

Right. I was just wondering if I went to India, bought a bunch of books off 
the shelf, stuck it in my luggage, came back to the US, and sold them, 
whether it would be breaking any laws, and if so, whose laws and when?

-- 
   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

scott wrote:
> Surely to store, index and deliver every song in the world on each 
> iTunes server is going to cost more than just the "locally selected" 
> catalogue?

Perhaps. Probably not noticably.

You're also confusing "sell what I have anywhere in the world" with "sell 
what anyone has anywhere in the world". If I have to go to iTunes Japan to 
buy the song, Japan doesn't need a catalog of US songs and vice versa. But 
it doesn't cost (technologically speaking) Japan any more to sell to me in 
the US than it does to sell to their own customers.

-- 
   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 16:58:57 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Note that no free software* in the world can currently interact with the
> music database of devices running iPhone OS 2.0 or later.
> 
> * (I didn't say "freeware", I mean it in the FSF way; although I doubt
> there is any proprietary-but-gratis software that can do it, either)

Yeah, Apple changed the hashing algorithm again and started issuing DMCA 
takedown notices for sites that disclose information about the hash, 
apparently.

I really like my Mini and if I could get Rockbox to work with my in-car 
player as well as my iHome, I'd ditch the Apple firmware permanently.  My 
next mp3 player will probably not be an iPod (or from Apple) because of 
the heavy-handed tactics they're using.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I always wondered what would happen if a black man sued some group like
> the KKK for not hiring him as a receptionist or some such. Would that be
> "fair"?

1. It's fairly easy to get around such requirements, if need be.

2. I doubt the KKK is officially an employer, so it doesn't apply.

-- 
Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>>     The person who sold it to me (online). Occasionally, these books are
>> shipped from abroad, but most of the time they're being sold within the
>> US. Either way, the seller knows where he's shipping to.
> 
> But you're saying the seller is in the US also? Sure, if he's in India

	I'm saying the one who shipped is in the US. As in it was shipped from
within the US, and that's how it's listed (with a few exceptions) on
places like Amazon - shipped from Florida, etc.

> and mailing you books to the US, I can see that. I was talking about the
> people who buy them in India, carry them to the US, and then sell them
> to others in the US. Potentially someone without any contract with the
> original publisher.

	Well, you asked who was violating the license - not who was violating
the law.<G> My point was that whoever sells it outside of India is
violating the license. Whether it is legal or not is another story.

>> 1. At least for the Indian books, it's usually listed either on the
>> front or back cover. Don't recall for the Korean ones...
> 
> Whichever. The point is that for it to be a contract, I have to agree to
> it. You can't just print something and say "Ha, gotcha!"

	Well, as you said - actual bookstores in India probably know about it
and are bound by it. I suppose if I were to resell it, I could claim
that I didn't know of the terms prior to purchase, so I can't be bound
by it.

	I don't really know. Lots of books (e.g. novels) have a notice inside
prohibiting the owner from reproducing, and even selling (or at least
the ones I read as a kid prohibited selling). I don't get to know those
terms prior to purchase. Perhaps they wouldn't stand up in court.

>> 2. That's why I said I don't know the legal implications. It's a
>> violation in Indian law, but I don't know about US law.
> 
> Yeah, that's what I was asking. You'd have to have a specific law in the
> US, not just some random pseudo-contract printed on the outside of the
> book.

	Isn't it possible certain international laws/agreements could cover
this? I think it could get a bit messier given that the owner of the
copyright is almost always a company/individual who does reside within
the US.

	I always wondered about this with regard to movies. Some non-English
movies have never been officially released in the US - nor have they
ever had English releases. (e.g. Talvisota for you Finns). Some of these
movies are considered classics in their countries (I assume - they have
high IMDB ratings).

	So if I find some independent retail store selling these movies in the
US, is the seller breaking a law within the US? Let's assume that
whoever owns the rights to a movie has no official presence in the US
(i.e. no office, not registered any trademarks, etc).

	Some of these movies are available via p2p, and people have created
subtitle files for them. Could I be liable for downloading them?

	Note that over here it's not the case that they're intentionally
restricting the market. They just never went through the trouble...

> Right. I was just wondering if I went to India, bought a bunch of books
> off the shelf, stuck it in my luggage, came back to the US, and sold
> them, whether it would be breaking any laws, and if so, whose laws and
> when?

	Same answer as above - may depend on treaties. And given that the
"original" licensor is in the US, it may have implications.

	Perhaps the company over here could sue for damages. A law need not be
broken for it to be a valid lawsuit, right? (I'm asking seriously).

-- 
Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	I don't really know. Lots of books (e.g. novels) have a notice inside
> prohibiting the owner from reproducing, and even selling 

In the US, we have the "first sale" doctrine. It says that if I buy a copy 
of a copyrighted work, it's mine to do with as I please. Publishers were 
trying to make it illegal to sell used books here, and the courts said 
"Nope, that's not copying. The buyer owns the copy. You don't get to control 
what happens after."

So that's kind of where I'm coming from.

I should probably take a class to brush up on this stuff, tho, since the 
laws have changed so much here since I learned about it.

-- 
   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 Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:06:40 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
>> I always wondered what would happen if a black man sued some group like
>> the KKK for not hiring him as a receptionist or some such. Would that
>> be "fair"?
> 
> 1. It's fairly easy to get around such requirements, if need be.
> 
> 2. I doubt the KKK is officially an employer, so it doesn't apply.

Well, they probably are considered some sort of non-profit organization 
(IIRC, they are considered a fraternal organization with officers), but I 
think they would be required by law to have an employer ID number if they 
paid their officers a salary.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>     I don't really know. Lots of books (e.g. novels) have a notice inside
>> prohibiting the owner from reproducing, and even selling 
> 
> In the US, we have the "first sale" doctrine. It says that if I buy a
> copy of a copyrighted work, it's mine to do with as I please. Publishers
> were trying to make it illegal to sell used books here, and the courts
> said "Nope, that's not copying. The buyer owns the copy. You don't get
> to control what happens after."

	Perhaps that's why I seem to remember reading it as a kid (or in old
novels) and perhaps not these days.


-- 
"Once again, Mr. Cutlet fulfilled the sacred oath of the public
educator: To take an inherently fun activity, and sap it of every ounce
of pleasure."
		-- Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years".


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Here we've even had lawsuits where men sued because they couldn't get hired 
> to work at a topless restaurant. (I.e., a "hooters" type place.)

  Well, there everyone sues everyone else for every possible reason, just
to see if they can milk some money from them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         And then there are export restrictions.

  But in this case it would be an US company refusing to sell a US citizen.
(Ok, I don't know if the original poster is an US citizen, but the situation
can perfectly well happen to one.) Nothing to export here.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Here we've even had lawsuits where men sued because they couldn't get hired 
>> to work at a topless restaurant. (I.e., a "hooters" type place.)
> 
>   Well, there everyone sues everyone else for every possible reason, just
> to see if they can milk some money from them.

Yes, it was a pretty silly lawsuit.

Lawyers: America's great untapped export market.

-- 
   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 Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:50:17 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Here we've even had lawsuits where men sued because they couldn't get
>> hired to work at a topless restaurant. (I.e., a "hooters" type place.)
> 
>   Well, there everyone sues everyone else for every possible reason,
>   just
> to see if they can milk some money from them.

Well, no, not *everyone*.  I haven't sued anyone.  So there's a 
counterexample to disprove your assertion. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, no, not *everyone*.  I haven't sued anyone.  So there's a 

	Yet.

-- 
The next war will determine not what is right, but what is left.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:06:40 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, no, not *everyone*.  I haven't sued anyone.  So there's a
> 
> 	Yet.

True, I was actually going to say "yet", but felt it diluted the point I 
was trying to make.

Which is this:  Many, many people live a full lifetime in the US and 
don't sue anyone.  My grandfather never sued anyone (to my knowledge) and 
lived a full life.  And he's very *very* unlikely to do so now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Which is this:  Many, many people live a full lifetime in the US and 
> don't sue anyone.  My grandfather never sued anyone (to my knowledge) and 
> lived a full life.  And he's very *very* unlikely to do so now.

	I agree with your bigger point. A more relevant statistic would be how
many people go through their whole lives without _being_ sued.

-- 
Don't take life so seriously.  It won't last.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:14:53 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Which is this:  Many, many people live a full lifetime in the US and
>> don't sue anyone.  My grandfather never sued anyone (to my knowledge)
>> and lived a full life.  And he's very *very* unlikely to do so now.
> 
> 	I agree with your bigger point. A more relevant statistic would 
be how
> many people go through their whole lives without _being_ sued.

Quite possibly, because there are those who sue more than once, or groups 
of people who sue individuals and corporations in large numbers.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> Well, they probably are considered some sort of non-profit organization 
> (IIRC, they are considered a fraternal organization with officers), but I 
> think they would be required by law to have an employer ID number if they 
> paid their officers a salary.

Would it be legal to stipulate that employees may only be a member if 
their "group?"


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:15:01 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Well, they probably are considered some sort of non-profit organization
>> (IIRC, they are considered a fraternal organization with officers), but
>> I think they would be required by law to have an employer ID number if
>> they paid their officers a salary.
> 
> Would it be legal to stipulate that employees may only be a member if
> their "group?"

I wouldn't know, I suppose you could, for example, in a religious 
institution require that workers there need to be members, but I'm not 
sure how that applies to an organization like this.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I wouldn't know, I suppose you could, for example, in a religious 
> institution require that workers there need to be members, but I'm not 
> sure how that applies to an organization like this.

That was kind of what I was talking about. Nobody seems to think it's silly 
to let a church require religious people to fill particular roles. But if 
you ask the same thing about a "nasty" group that's just as protected under 
US law, I can see people getting bent out of shape.

-- 
   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 Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:56:03 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I wouldn't know, I suppose you could, for example, in a religious
>> institution require that workers there need to be members, but I'm not
>> sure how that applies to an organization like this.
> 
> That was kind of what I was talking about. Nobody seems to think it's
> silly to let a church require religious people to fill particular roles.
> But if you ask the same thing about a "nasty" group that's just as
> protected under US law, I can see people getting bent out of shape.

Yeah, I can see that point of view.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> That was kind of what I was talking about. Nobody seems to think it's 
> silly to let a church require religious people to fill particular roles. 

And just to be clear, I am not targetting just religion. I don't think 
people would look askance at the comment "We didn't hire him as CEO of 
National Organization for Women because he is a man."

-- 
   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

> But it doesn't cost (technologically speaking) Japan any more to sell to 
> me in the US than it does to sell to their own customers.

Depends how many non-Japanese customers try to buy from the Japan site.  If 
it is a significant number then they will have to buy more bandwidth etc.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> But it doesn't cost (technologically speaking) Japan any more to sell 
>> to me in the US than it does to sell to their own customers.
> 
> Depends how many non-Japanese customers try to buy from the Japan site.  
> If it is a significant number then they will have to buy more bandwidth 

But they can easily pay for that bandwidth with the extra sales. If they're 
making money at 1000 sales/week with one T1, they'll make money at 3000 
sales/week with three T1's.  Probably more.

It doesn't cost them more to sell to one American than to one Japanese.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

> You would be *amazed* at the level of fraud with online gambling sites.

You'd be amazed at the amount of profit too :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> You would be *amazed* at the level of fraud with online gambling sites.
> 
> You'd be amazed at the amount of profit too :-)

No, I wouldn't. That was another of those "why do I keep winding up getting 
paid a flat rate to write payment systems for people who make 50x as much 
money as I make using them?" :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message