Ok, so my daughter watched Rozen Maiden, and said, "Dad, I want that song 
for my iPod."

Sounds reasonable enough.  For 99 cents, I can probably get it from iTunes. 
Right?  Uh, no.  No problem, let's check Amazon.  Nope.  Hmmm...  I've got 
an idea.  I bet I can get it from iTunes Japan!  I'm so smart!

So, I change my iTunes country to Japan, and do a search.  Yep!  There it 
is!  Ok, let's download it for whatever it costs after converting Yen to US 
dollars.  At this point, I don't care if it's $2 or $3.  Not a problem for 
me.

Gee.  If I change my country to Japan and iTunes finds out that I don't 
actually, physically reside there, I will get into big trouble with them. 
At least that's what they say.  They'll block my account.  Dangit!  Now 
what?

Well, maybe I can buy the whole album from somewhere for cheap.  Think 
again!  Imported CD's cost 2 to 3 times as much as a regular CD (often $40 
or more), plus I really only want this one song.

Ok, I guess it's time for me to start Googling, and hopefully I can find an 
mp3 out there somewhere, and obtain the music illegally, having pretty much 
exhausted all other options.  Yep.  There it is.  Whew.  I finally got it.

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!!!

Eventually, I figured out how to copy the song file onto the iPod, but it 
still won't play it, because I copied it as a file, not as a song.  Well, at 
least it's on the iPod now...

Finally, I get home and hook up the old computer from the flooded basement 
(the computer never got wet, but I couldn't use it down there).  After 
spending an hour getting the computer up and running again, I'm finally able 
to copy the mp3 (that I downloaded illegally from the Internet) from her 
iPod, back onto her iPod in a playable format.


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*

Post a reply to this message

> 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!!!
>
> Eventually, I figured out how to copy the song file onto the iPod, but it 
> still won't play it, because I copied it as a file, not as a song.  Well, 
> at least it's on the iPod now...

The reasons above are exactly why I vowed never to buy an iPod again.

With other music players you just treat them like a hard drive and drag and 
drop whatever mp3s you feel like, and if (like me) you have a folder of 
"random" mp3s the music player just lets you navigate to that folder. 
However on an iPod it mixes in all those random mp3s with all the complete 
albums, so you end up with 4234235 albums, most of which just contain 1 
track.  That makes it much harder to search for anything to play.

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote in message
news:4a27cd55$1@news.povray.org...

[...]

> 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*

In a yet another alternative universe, it would have been a perfect
opportunity to teach a youngster that one may not always be able to get what
she wants.

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?

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4a27d262$1@news.povray.org...
> In a yet another alternative universe, it would have been a perfect
> opportunity to teach a youngster that one may not always be able to get 
> what
> she wants.

At that point, it became my own personal obsession.  Touche, nevertheless.

>
> 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."

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.  The reason I 
can't buy it is simply because they have not made a determination as to what 
to charge this other market.  And the reason that they haven't, is simply 
because it's currently a small overseas market.  It's cheaper for them (Big 
Music) to ignore it, than to spend the time determining what prices to 
charge in the various market-places.  Plus, this does not even get into 
licensing and distribution issues, which, again the vast majority of artists 
themselves could not care less about.  "I recorded a song, and I want to 
sell it to anyone who will pay."

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
> Gee.  If I change my country to Japan and iTunes finds out that I don't 
> actually, physically reside there, I will get into big trouble with them. 
> At least that's what they say.  They'll block my account.  Dangit!  Now 
> what?

  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? Imagine if
this happened with real stores as well:

Customer: "Hey do you have this CD on sale?"
Salesman: "Let me see... Yes, we have it. It will be 500 yen."
Customer: "Great, I'll take it. Here's the money."
Salesman: "Can I ask you your country of residence?"
Customer: "I live in the United States, I'm just visiting Japan."
Salesman: "Oh, I'm sorry, but in that case I can't sell you this. You will
           have to leave the store, or I'll call the police."
Customer: "???!"

  Great way of making money.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> "Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
>> Gee.  If I change my country to Japan and iTunes finds out that I don't
>> actually, physically reside there, I will get into big trouble with them.
>> At least that's what they say.  They'll block my account.  Dangit!  Now
>> what?
> 
>   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? Imagine if
> this happened with real stores as well:
> 
> Customer: "Hey do you have this CD on sale?"
> Salesman: "Let me see... Yes, we have it. It will be 500 yen."
> Customer: "Great, I'll take it. Here's the money."
> Salesman: "Can I ask you your country of residence?"
> Customer: "I live in the United States, I'm just visiting Japan."
> Salesman: "Oh, I'm sorry, but in that case I can't sell you this. You will
>            have to leave the store, or I'll call the police."
> Customer: "???!"
> 
>   Great way of making money.

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)

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Ok, so my daughter watched Rozen Maiden, and said, "Dad, I want that song 
> for my iPod."

Psst...watch Shugo Chara!  ;)

Most of the OP and EDs are insanely catchy, on top of it being an 
awesome series.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

"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

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:4a2811d6@news.povray.org...
> "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.
>
It's entirely legal (again, DMCA not withstanding).  You will undoubted 
breach the license agreement for nearly every commerical software license, 
however.  Similarly, you could write an emulator that will run all Mac 
software on a PC or vice-versa.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:28:42 -0600, somebody wrote:

> 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.

Depends on the license for the software.  Obviously for GPL'ed software, 
that's not a problem.  You can reverse-engineer it all you want and 
compile it for another platform if you so desire.  It's usually easier to 
just acquire the source, though. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote in message 
news:4a280be2$1@news.povray.org...
> ...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.

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...

---
Terms of Sale
JAPAN SALES ONLY

Purchases from the iTunes Store are available to you only in Japan and are 
not available in any other location. You agree not to use or attempt to use 
the service from outside of the available territory. iTunes may use 
technologies to verify such compliance.

Post a reply to this message

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.)

-- 
H²

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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

But there are various limitations on how you can enforce such a thing. For 
example, say you buy a game, open the CD, put it in your drive, install it, 
and then it asks you if you agree to the license. Will the game store take 
that back if you didn't accept the license at that point?  If not, you 
bought it under copyright.

The box doesn't say they're selling you a license. It says they're selling 
you a copy of the game. If you get it home and find you only bought a 
license, you could probably claim bait-and-switch. :-) Plus, it's still the 
case that a license can't take away rights granted to you by copyright law. 
That's exactly what the Copywrite v Prolock case was about.


Both of these facts have come up in various court cases, and in each case 
the court managed to find some way of not addressing the fundamental 
problem. :-)

-- 
   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 13:20:05 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Are you?
> 
> Pretty sure. IANAL.

It would be interesting to see that play out in court.

>>  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. :-)

Possibly, but I think DMCA still trumps it.  I'm not saying that's right, 
but it seems that it would, though DMCA does include a specific provision 
for accessibility IIRC.

>>> 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.

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.  Again, would be 
interesting to see that actually tried, because DMCA explicitly provides 
provisions for preventing the circumvention of technological means used 
to protect intellectual property.

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.

But that's never been challenged in court.

>> 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.

Yes, but I think a license agreement on software these days isn't a state 
license.  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.

I've always thought that the whole idea of clickwrap/shrinkwrap licenses 
was legally dubious in any event.

> 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.

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:52:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Both of these facts have come up in various court cases, and in each
> case the court managed to find some way of not addressing the
> fundamental problem. :-)

That's ultimately the problem - the courts have avoided coming to a 
decision on it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

That's the case I'm thinking of, yes.

> 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.

Right.

> 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.

Right. That's why I said "DMCA notwithstanding".

"Illegal copies." Now, is it OK to circumvent to make legal copies? That's 
what I was trying to say before - I think there's specifically language in 
the DMCA to allow circumvention of necessary to use the material as intended.

-- 
   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 15:52:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> But there are various limitations on how you can enforce such a thing.
> For example, say you buy a game, open the CD, put it in your drive,
> install it, and then it asks you if you agree to the license. Will the
> game store take that back if you didn't accept the license at that
> point?  If not, you bought it under copyright.
> 
> The box doesn't say they're selling you a license. It says they're
> selling you a copy of the game. If you get it home and find you only
> bought a license, you could probably claim bait-and-switch.  Plus, it's
> still the case that a license can't take away rights granted to you by
> copyright law. That's exactly what the Copywrite v Prolock case was
> about.

Of course, then you'd have a case to be made against the retailer as 
well, that they should allow you to return the game if you can prove you 
didn't accept the license.

But at the same time, the license can't take away rights granted under 
copyright law, sure, but that's what the software companies are trying to 
do - prevent anyone from getting rights through copyright law by not 
selling the software to you, but rather selling you a license to use the 
software.  Copyright then applies to the license rather than the software.

At the time the Prolock case was heard, this type of licensing 
arrangement wasn't very common, and you actually did purchase a copy of 
the software rather than a license to use the software.  That's what the 
software companies seem to me to be trying to do with the new licensing 
of software, to work around the Prolock ruling by saying "well, you 
didn't buy the software, you bought a license to use it.  It's like a 
rental agreement."

And with a rental agreement, the landlord can kick the tenant out if the 
landlord determines that the tenant violated the rules of occupation 
(like smoking in a property that's legally designated as a non-smoking 
property by contract).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Possibly, but I think DMCA still trumps it.  I'm not saying that's right, 
> but it seems that it would, though DMCA does include a specific provision 
> for accessibility IIRC.

Right. I'm not going to argue it. I'm just going to say that given the 
protection isn't absolute, it seems reasonable someone could make an 
argument that normally using a program you just bought, even if the vendor 
didn't expect you to use it that way, might pass muster.

> 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 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.

> But that's never been challenged in court.

Exactly. It's all grey here.

> 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.

> 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.

> I've always thought that the whole idea of clickwrap/shrinkwrap licenses 
> was legally dubious in any event.

That too.

>> 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. :-)

> 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.

-- 
   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 16:03:50 -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.

> "Illegal copies." Now, is it OK to circumvent to make legal copies?
> That's what I was trying to say before - I think there's specifically
> language in the DMCA to allow circumvention of necessary to use the
> material as intended.

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?".

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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