Linux on Xbox? (was: Canada vs. Microsoft)
phil hunt
>phil hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:13:17 -0800, rosignol <rosi...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>>>Any brand-name box can be tracked by serial number from the OEM to the
>>>distributor to the retailer, and Bill Gates is most certainly enough of
>>>a control-freak to make them do it, and ruthless enough to put any
>>>computer manufacturer who crosses him out of business.
>
>> Then why isn't this happening in OTL?
>
>I just read on Slashdot yesterday that Microsoft isn't going to bother
>selling the X-Box entertainment system in China or Hong Kong, primarily
>due to the large scale of software piracy that goes on there. Of course,
>the X-Box will still be available; it will just be shipped in by various
>second parties from elsewhere. Microsoft can't unilaterally set up a trade
>embargo, even for goods that they themselves are manufacturing.
>
>Note, BTW, that the X-Box is not analogous to a standard PC in a very
>important way; the actual physical hardware is sold at a price that is
>_below cost_, so Microsoft actually loses money on each X-Box sale. The
>revenue is made up from royalties on the games.
Wouldn't it be cool if someone managed to port Linux onto it, and lots
of Linux hackers could then buy subsidised PCs from Microsoft? :-)
Does anyone know if the Xbox EULA forbids this?
--
*** Philip Hunt *** ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ***
mlw
I'm pretty sure that since the XBox is hardware, subject to actual ownership
not copyright, the owner can do whatever they damn well want.
Doug.M
Why waste your time with a XBOX when Sony will be developing a Linux
port to their Play Station 2 for their home users ?
Craig Kelley
> I'm pretty sure that since the XBox is hardware, subject to actual
> ownership not copyright, the owner can do whatever they damn well
> want.
Just like with DVD players and discs?
--
It is financially more expensive to go to prison than to attend Harvard.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Steven Hurdle
>> Wouldn't it be cool if someone managed to port Linux onto it, and lots
>> of Linux hackers could then buy subsidised PCs from Microsoft? :-)
>>
>> Does anyone know if the Xbox EULA forbids this?
>Why waste your time with a XBOX when Sony will be developing a Linux
>port to their Play Station 2 for their home users ?
One possible explanation is price. An Xbox with hard drive and
broadband connectivity costs $300 U.S., both of which are costly add-ons
for the PS2 and all-but necessary for making installing Linux on a PS2
worth your while. On top of that the PS2 also costs $300 U.S.... and
that's IF you can get it at that price since Sony is mostly selling it as
a bundle with a game making the initial buy-in price higher than the Xbox
even before you start talking about the need to purchase hard drive and
communications hardware add-ons.
|||Steven Hurdle|||
Richard Ingram
Like anyone will give a damn what M$osft say, if you want to hack the box you
will, it's up to you if you want to void your warranty and support.
Richard.
Cernunnos
news:u6689h...@mindspring.com...
Yeah, cause ya know microsoft support is sooo top of the notch.
Eric S Johnson
"Craig Kelley" <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
news:m1vggad...@inconnu.isu.edu...
> mlw <ma...@mohawksoft.com> writes:
>
> > I'm pretty sure that since the XBox is hardware, subject to actual
> > ownership not copyright, the owner can do whatever they damn well
> > want.
>
> Just like with DVD players and discs?
>
Players are hardware. You can do what you want to them.
Discs are software, subject to licensing agreements. Hence the "FBI
Warning"
Eric
The Ghost In The Machine
<du...@havenmud.com>
wrote
on Sat, 17 Nov 2001 03:45:17 -0500
<9t587f$u0k$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>:
>
>"Craig Kelley" <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
>news:m1vggad...@inconnu.isu.edu...
>> mlw <ma...@mohawksoft.com> writes:
>>
>> > I'm pretty sure that since the XBox is hardware, subject to actual
>> > ownership not copyright, the owner can do whatever they damn well
>> > want.
>>
>> Just like with DVD players and discs?
>>
>
>
>Players are hardware. You can do what you want to them.
I wonder. Reverse-engineering of chips has long been in a
rather gray area of the law, as I understand it.
>
>Discs are software, subject to licensing agreements. Hence the "FBI
>Warning"
And hardware and software are integrated in many products.
Is software legally replaceable in a piece of hardware?
That may indeed be the question.
[.sigsnip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- and then there are organic transistors :-)
EAC code #191 6d:00h:12m actually running Linux.
Use the source, Luke.
D. C. Sessions
In a word, no.
DVDs are not licensed any more than a book is. There are certain
rights that a purchaser acquires upon paying for the tangible
instantiation of any copyrighted work. Among them are resale,
private performance, etc.
Software licenses are an attempt to require a "contract" which
in no way provides value to the purchaser but limits her rights
which would otherwise accrue from purchase. However, this
kind of post-sale contract is not well tested in the law and may
well be invalid for a number of reasons.
The "FBI Warning," OTOH, has nothing to do with licensing and
is simply a statement of the copyright holder's rights under the
law, which forbids anyone else from distributing copies. (Notice
I didn't write, "making copies," which is expressly *permitted*
under the American Home Recording Act.)
No matter how you slice it, the X-box hardware is purchased, not
licensed (no more than your microwave is). Hack it as you will,
unless Microsoft asserts some wierd interpretation of the DMCA
you're on solid ground.
Why hack the X-box? Mainly because it's a cheap, reasonable,
*quiet* little computer and if Microsoft wants to subsidize the
production of embedded Linux boxen then who are we to object?
--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
+----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
phil hunt
>>
>> Wouldn't it be cool if someone managed to port Linux onto it, and lots
>> of Linux hackers could then buy subsidised PCs from Microsoft? :-)
>>
>> Does anyone know if the Xbox EULA forbids this?
>>
>
>Why waste your time with a XBOX when Sony will be developing a Linux
>port to their Play Station 2 for their home users ?
Dunno about developing, it's already on sale (in Japan anyway).
When will it be released in the UK, if ever?
Jeffrey Siegal
> DVDs are not licensed any more than a book is. ...
>
> The "FBI Warning," OTOH, has nothing to do with licensing and
> is simply a statement of the copyright holder's rights under the
> law, which forbids anyone else from distributing copies. (Notice
> I didn't write, "making copies," which is expressly *permitted*
> under the American Home Recording Act.)
The AHRA only applies to "musical recordings," not videos.
Isaac
<ew...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>I wonder. Reverse-engineering of chips has long been in a
>rather gray area of the law, as I understand it.
I think it's less so now. There is sui generis protection for chip
designs. If you don't protect your designs with that or with a
patent, perhaps the issue isn't gray at all.
Isaac
D. C. Sessions
>>Players are hardware. You can do what you want to them.
>
> I wonder. Reverse-engineering of chips has long been in a
> rather gray area of the law, as I understand it.
Reverse-engineering is specifically permitted by law in many
jurisdictions worldwide. It probably doesn't need to be in the
US, but the laws just nail the point down past argument.
Edward Rosten
> licensed (no more than your microwave is). Hack it as you will,
> unless Microsoft asserts some wierd interpretation of the DMCA
> you're on solid ground.
Bad choice of hardware (in the UK at least). Over here, it's illegal to
piss about with the insides of a microwave unless you have a license.
That's odd since you're generally allowed to do stupidly dangerous things
(like rewire your own house whilst being unqualified) as long as you only
subject yourself to the results. But hey, who ever said our laws were
either rational or consistent ;-)
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5/m
{moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}
for /s 15 d f pop 240 420 m 0 1 3 { 4 2 1 r sub -1 r show } for showpage
Peter Köhlmann
> In <slrn9vdhgt...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net> The Ghost In The
> Machine posted:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Eric S Johnson
>> <du...@havenmud.com>
>
>>>Players are hardware. You can do what you want to them.
>>
>> I wonder. Reverse-engineering of chips has long been in a
>> rather gray area of the law, as I understand it.
>
> Reverse-engineering is specifically permitted by law in many
> jurisdictions worldwide. It probably doesn't need to be in the
> US, but the laws just nail the point down past argument.
>
Yep, it is for example in germany. You can not forbid that by an silly
EULA or stuff like that, it will be thrown out of the courts at once.
The DeCSS case would never have been possible in germany.
Peter
--
Registered Linux user # 226652
T. Max Devlin
>In <9t587f$u0k$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> Eric S Johnson posted:
>> "Craig Kelley" <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:m1vggad...@inconnu.isu.edu...
>>> mlw <ma...@mohawksoft.com> writes:
>Software licenses are an attempt to require a "contract" which
>in no way provides value to the purchaser but limits her rights
>which would otherwise accrue from purchase. However, this
>kind of post-sale contract is not well tested in the law and may
>well be invalid for a number of reasons.
>
>The "FBI Warning," OTOH, has nothing to do with licensing and
>is simply a statement of the copyright holder's rights under the
>law, which forbids anyone else from distributing copies. (Notice
>I didn't write, "making copies," which is expressly *permitted*
>under the American Home Recording Act.)
Quite so.
>No matter how you slice it, the X-box hardware is purchased, not
>licensed (no more than your microwave is). Hack it as you will,
>unless Microsoft asserts some wierd interpretation of the DMCA
>you're on solid ground.
I'm quite sure that is precisely what they will do if anyone threatens
their monopolization of the XBox product market. The new copyright laws
do clearly provide a very straight-forward interpretation which
over-rides the precedents in the old video game console cases on which
your understanding is based. In the late 80s, Activision got sued by
Sony and Sony lost, because the law is (was) clear, in that you cannot
prevent reverse engineering and inclusion of any necessary IP to provide
compatibility.
But Xbox has DirectX.
>Why hack the X-box? Mainly because it's a cheap, reasonable,
>*quiet* little computer and if Microsoft wants to subsidize the
>production of embedded Linux boxen then who are we to object?
Why is it a waste of time and money? Because MS can leverage the entire
PC market against you, using DirectX, churn, and FUD. Fanboys are
super-easy targets for FUD, since all of their delusions of the industry
are only fed by the moronic simplifications of industry activity that
FUD is often phrased as. A couple favors from an idiot journalist in a
trade mag, and you would be amazed how quickly popular wisdom turns into
absolute certainty in the fanboy mindset. Hell, naive PC consumers are
less susceptible to FUD, churn, and monopoly leverage.
Still, the box sucks, I'm sure, and the fact that MS is having everybody
they can find give the things away only makes it a close second to XP
for 'last desperate gasp' awards.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
T. Max Devlin
The issue is that it is unlawful to produce works based on reverse
engineered intellectual property (copyright or patent). With patent,
this is an absolute, since they have to explain how it works in the
patent, and reverse engineering shouldn't be necessary anyway, and the
term of patent is shorter. Copyright, because of its association with
text, gets really fucked up with digital technology.
The milestone case (from memory; I'll have to track it down again, it
seems) was Sony v. Accolade, IIRC. Accolade had to include 'secret
code' which they discovered by reverse engineering Sony's console and
games, and Sony sued them for copyright infringement for including the
code in their games. The code was also related to displaying a Sony
brand logo, so the suite also included trademark infringement. They
lost completely after appeals, because the court ruled that you simply
cannot prevent someone from reverse engineering your devices, or your
software, and they can use whatever copyrighted code is necessary to
produce things compatible with that device.
Chips themselves get gray because, I presume, the entire design is
protected by all sorts of IP, which might be thought to cover the entire
device. A game console is a bit more complex. An OS is trivial, but
trade secret contracts are maintaining a monopoly anyway.
T. Max Devlin
>In <slrn9vdhgt...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net> The Ghost In The Machine posted:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Eric S Johnson
>> <du...@havenmud.com>
>
>>>Players are hardware. You can do what you want to them.
>>
>> I wonder. Reverse-engineering of chips has long been in a
>> rather gray area of the law, as I understand it.
>
>Reverse-engineering is specifically permitted by law in many
>jurisdictions worldwide. It probably doesn't need to be in the
>US, but the laws just nail the point down past argument.
Reverse engineering itself is, but the real issue is producing goods
based on the reverse engineering. There you run into problems with
intellectual property, especially modern copyright laws, which frankly
make it illegal to even read a digital file without explicit permission
covered by a licensing agreement.
Bryan Derksen
<tm...@commercelinks.net> wrote:
>Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard D. C. Sessions say:
>>jurisdictions worldwide. It probably doesn't need to be in the
>>US, but the laws just nail the point down past argument.
>
>Reverse engineering itself is, but the real issue is producing goods
>based on the reverse engineering. There you run into problems with
>intellectual property, especially modern copyright laws, which frankly
>make it illegal to even read a digital file without explicit permission
>covered by a licensing agreement.
Then I guess I've broken the law by reading this Usenet posting. And
_you're_ breaking the law by reading _this_ Usenet posting, since I
haven't given you explicit permission to read this digital file
through a licensing agreement.
In fact, I explicitly forbid you or anyone else from reading this
Usenet post. :)
Anyway, even if this really _is_ supported by law (which I truly
doubt), then it merely shows that the law is completely impractical
and should be ignored until it is finally overturned. It's legislation
against the tide coming in.
Craig Kelley
> "Craig Kelley" <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
> news:m1vggad...@inconnu.isu.edu...
> > mlw <ma...@mohawksoft.com> writes:
> >
> > > I'm pretty sure that since the XBox is hardware, subject to actual
> > > ownership not copyright, the owner can do whatever they damn well
> > > want.
> >
> > Just like with DVD players and discs?
>
> Players are hardware. You can do what you want to them.
Like reverse-engineer them? Set them to regionless modes?
It seems it is a bit more complex than you make it out to be.
> Discs are software, subject to licensing agreements. Hence the "FBI
> Warning"
Discs contain IP; I wouldn't say they are 'software'.
T. Max Devlin
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 00:15:02 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><tm...@commercelinks.net> wrote:
>>Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard D. C. Sessions say:
>>>Reverse-engineering is specifically permitted by law in many
>>>jurisdictions worldwide. It probably doesn't need to be in the
>>>US, but the laws just nail the point down past argument.
>>
>>Reverse engineering itself is, but the real issue is producing goods
>>based on the reverse engineering. There you run into problems with
>>intellectual property, especially modern copyright laws, which frankly
>>make it illegal to even read a digital file without explicit permission
>>covered by a licensing agreement.
>
>Then I guess I've broken the law by reading this Usenet posting.
I could sue you, theoretically. But then again, so could everybody
else. You can't blame me for the fact that the law doesn't make sense.
>And
>_you're_ breaking the law by reading _this_ Usenet posting, since I
>haven't given you explicit permission to read this digital file
>through a licensing agreement.
Well, you aren't all that important. We've got ISPs, Usenet services,
all sorts of carriers to deal with first.
>In fact, I explicitly forbid you or anyone else from reading this
>Usenet post. :)
>
>Anyway, even if this really _is_ supported by law (which I truly
>doubt), then it merely shows that the law is completely impractical
>and should be ignored until it is finally overturned. It's legislation
>against the tide coming in.
No, it is the law, and your "it can't stop the inevitable" attitude
might well be characterized as cluelessness, since unless you have a
couple million dollars, you don't get any rights, given the current sea
level.
Stefaan A Eeckels
Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
> "Eric S Johnson" <du...@havenmud.com> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:m1vggad...@inconnu.isu.edu...
> > > mlw <ma...@mohawksoft.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > I'm pretty sure that since the XBox is hardware, subject to actual
> > > > ownership not copyright, the owner can do whatever they damn well
> > > > want.
> > >
> > > Just like with DVD players and discs?
> >
> > Players are hardware. You can do what you want to them.
>
> Like reverse-engineer them? Set them to regionless modes?
It would seem to me that there is nothing illegal in that, even
in the USA. I'm quite sure you can open any device you buy
and tinker with it to your heart's content as long as you
understand that doing so voids the warranty.
Or could it come to pass that Disney, Sony et al. bribe Congress
to enact a law that obliges TV repair shops to turn in customers
bringing in suspected multi-zone DVD players for repair ;-).
--
Stefaan (GPG Fingerprint 25D8 551B 4C0F BF73 3283 21F1 5978 D158 7539 76E4)
--
"Technically, Windows is an 'operating system,' which means that it
supplies your computer with the basic commands that it needs to
suddenly, with no warning whatsoever, stop operating." -Dave Barry
Nigel Feltham
>> > Players are hardware. You can do what you want to them.
>>
>> Like reverse-engineer them? Set them to regionless modes?
>
> It would seem to me that there is nothing illegal in that, even
> in the USA. I'm quite sure you can open any device you buy
> and tinker with it to your heart's content as long as you
> understand that doing so voids the warranty.
>
Most of the cheap chinese players sold in supermarkets in england can be
switched to multi-region by entering secret engineer codes with the normal
remote-control.
It is even possible that some of the supermarkets or manufacturers may be
anonymously posting the engineer codes to change region onto the relevent
newsgroups to increase the sales of their players.
It's illegal here for manufacturers to make multiregion machines (probably
not really illegal but manufacturers could lose licence to make players if
not region coded) but appears to be legal for the shop selling the player
to either tell the customer the code to change the region or add a
multiregion chip.
Isaac
wrote:
>It would seem to me that there is nothing illegal in that, even
>in the USA. I'm quite sure you can open any device you buy
>and tinker with it to your heart's content as long as you
>understand that doing so voids the warranty.
>
Converting a DVD player to regionless operation seems to me a clear
case of manufacturing a device that can "circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under
this title. [Title 17 of the US Code]"
I'd suggest that doing so is illegal under the DMCA. Perhaps it
will become illegal even in Europe when your version of the DMCA
becomes law.
Isaac
Stefaan A Eeckels
is...@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac) wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 14:25:20 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels <Stefaan...@ecc.lu>
> wrote:
> >It would seem to me that there is nothing illegal in that, even
> >in the USA. I'm quite sure you can open any device you buy
> >and tinker with it to your heart's content as long as you
> >understand that doing so voids the warranty.
> >
>
> Converting a DVD player to regionless operation seems to me a clear
> case of manufacturing a device that can "circumvent a technological
> measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under
> this title. [Title 17 of the US Code]"
Meseems you're not manufacturing a device. You're tinkering
with your property. I've been told (by a Frenchman) that the
French have this astute approach, where it's illegal to offer
your services to convert DVD players to multizone, whereas it
isn't illegal either to own such a beast, or do the conversion
yourself. Hence the flock of Frenchmen buying multizone DVD
players here in Luxembourg.
> I'd suggest that doing so is illegal under the DMCA. Perhaps it
> will become illegal even in Europe when your version of the DMCA
> becomes law.
Recently, a court in Germany decided that it was not an offence
to "pirate" a service that was not available in the country.
The case was brought by, IIRC, SkyTV against a German who used
a bootleg decoder card to watch SkyTV. But as it was impossible
to buy a genuine card, the court decided SkyTV's complaint was
without merit. Luxembourg applies the same principle, which is
why we can, very openly and very legally, buy bootleg decoders
for a large number of digital TV channels. The message seems to
be "If we're not worthwhile selling to, we won't bother protecting
your rights".
T. Max Devlin
>On 17 Nov 2001 20:56:55 -0700
>Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
>> "Eric S Johnson" <du...@havenmud.com> writes:
>> > "Craig Kelley" <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:m1vggad...@inconnu.isu.edu...
>> > > mlw <ma...@mohawksoft.com> writes:
>> > >
>> > > > I'm pretty sure that since the XBox is hardware, subject to actual
>> > > > ownership not copyright, the owner can do whatever they damn well
>> > > > want.
>> > >
>> > > Just like with DVD players and discs?
>> >
>> > Players are hardware. You can do what you want to them.
>>
>> Like reverse-engineer them? Set them to regionless modes?
>
>It would seem to me that there is nothing illegal in that, even
>in the USA. I'm quite sure you can open any device you buy
>and tinker with it to your heart's content as long as you
>understand that doing so voids the warranty.
Well, maybe in theory, but you see, you are entering codes into the
device by configuring it to your heart's content, and they can claim you
don't have the right to so "copy" their intellectual property. Believe
it or not.
>Or could it come to pass that Disney, Sony et al. bribe Congress
>to enact a law that obliges TV repair shops to turn in customers
>bringing in suspected multi-zone DVD players for repair ;-).
The purpose of the law is not to secure any legal convictions against
lawbreakers. Quite the opposite. The purpose of current copyright laws
is to allow coercion to be used to prevent competition, and maintain the
price of every piece of intellectual property, each an effective
"monopoly" given these new laws, and a literal 'right to monopolize', at
exorbitant levels. Congress already set themselves up for this half a
century ago, earlier. The fundamental shift in copyright law which
occurred with the introduction of recorded performances simply went the
wrong way. They asked the people who wanted to make money selling
phonograph records how to set up the laws, and then kept modifying them
little by little with each new media technology. They tried to do it
well and fairly, and they got close, but the extension of the worst
problems to outrageous dimensions when digital data came along makes
clear that there is a fundamental flaw in the nature of copyright law.
I summarize it with the idea that copyright is not metaphysics, it is
book-keeping. Once the author got paid by the producer, and I pay the
producer for the copy, I have the intellectual property, and I own that
copy and can do anything I want with it. Copyright law says I can't
make any copies without permission, but this requires 'copy' to become a
floating abstraction. The law defines copy as more than 10 copies, or
more than $1000 worth, or any number used in commerce, or whatever
number I have previously agreed to limit myself to (this is not
copyright, but trade secret contract law) or whatever. But I can make
as many copies as I want to "use" the digital data if it is a program,
and there is the question of both fair use and technical necessity.
In truth, CDs are handy because we can write them, and there can be no
crime in making as many copies as you want. It is only when you start
to distribute them to other people that the book-keeping comes back into
play. You are allowed to give copies away to friends; that is one of
the things that makes CDs attractive. Napster tests the limit of
'friends', but it is tough to see copyright law as anything other than
an excuse for profiteering.
The basic flaw in assumption which dooms copyright law today is the
delusion that if whoever gives or gets it couldn't give or get it for
free, they'd pay retail price for it. That's just plain stupid. But it
is precisely the theory on which the modern implementation of copyright
is based on.
Isaac
wrote:
>Meseems you're not manufacturing a device. You're tinkering
>with your property. I've been told (by a Frenchman) that the
>French have this astute approach, where it's illegal to offer
>your services to convert DVD players to multizone, whereas it
>isn't illegal either to own such a beast, or do the conversion
>yourself. Hence the flock of Frenchmen buying multizone DVD
>players here in Luxembourg.
Your tinkering is either manufacturing or circumventing. Further
when you use your tinkered with property you are circumventing regardless
of whether your tinkering finds some loophole.
I wouldn't want to use the defense you suggested here.
>> I'd suggest that doing so is illegal under the DMCA. Perhaps it
>> will become illegal even in Europe when your version of the DMCA
>> becomes law.
>
>Recently, a court in Germany decided that it was not an offence
>to "pirate" a service that was not available in the country.
>The case was brought by, IIRC, SkyTV against a German who used
>a bootleg decoder card to watch SkyTV. But as it was impossible
>to buy a genuine card, the court decided SkyTV's complaint was
>without merit. Luxembourg applies the same principle, which is
That may be the current law in Germany, but perhaps that will
change. The tinkering/circumventing we are discussing used to be
legal in the US too.
Isaac
Jim Richardson
AFAIK, in the US, it's not illegal to make a multiregion player, you
just can't use the DVD logo and name on it if you do. Some licensing
deal with the vampire guys at the DVD consortium.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Jeffrey Siegal
> Your tinkering is either manufacturing or circumventing. Further
> when you use your tinkered with property you are circumventing regardless
> of whether your tinkering finds some loophole.
I think circumventing would be using the device to access protected
material.
It is possible that the "tinkering is not manufacturing" argument could
work, but it is still certainly the case that actually using the device
after tinkering with it violates the plain language of statute.
>>>I'd suggest that doing so is illegal under the DMCA. Perhaps it
>>>will become illegal even in Europe when your version of the DMCA
>>>becomes law.
>>>
>>Recently, a court in Germany decided that it was not an offence
>>to "pirate" a service that was not available in the country.
>>The case was brought by, IIRC, SkyTV against a German who used
>>a bootleg decoder card to watch SkyTV. But as it was impossible
>>to buy a genuine card, the court decided SkyTV's complaint was
>>without merit. Luxembourg applies the same principle, which is
>
> That may be the current law in Germany, but perhaps that will
> change. The tinkering/circumventing we are discussing used to be
> legal in the US too.
It isn't 100% certain[*] that such an argument would fail in the US,
since an element of fair use analysis is the impact on the market, and
the interplay between fair use and circumvention has not been fully
litigated at this point. Clearly at least some of those who wrote the
law intended for the law to preclude circumvention resulting in
otherwise fair use, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
[*] Maybe 99% though.
Isaac
>It isn't 100% certain[*] that such an argument would fail in the US,
>since an element of fair use analysis is the impact on the market, and
>the interplay between fair use and circumvention has not been fully
>litigated at this point. Clearly at least some of those who wrote the
>law intended for the law to preclude circumvention resulting in
>otherwise fair use, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
>
>[*] Maybe 99% though.
Well, there is that language in the statute that fair use defenses
and other limitations are still in play, but it sure is hard to
see any room left to apply those defenses. Maybe it will turn out that
home users and librarians are allowed to hack DVD players for some
limited purposes but that no one is allowed to distribute those
solutions.
Maybe the Sklyarov prosecution will flesh out the rest of this.
Isaac
Tuomo Takkula
> > No matter how you slice it, the X-box hardware is purchased, not
> > licensed (no more than your microwave is). Hack it as you will,
> > unless Microsoft asserts some wierd interpretation of the DMCA
> > you're on solid ground.
>
> Bad choice of hardware (in the UK at least). Over here, it's illegal to
> piss about with the insides of a microwave unless you have a license.
> That's odd since you're generally allowed to do stupidly dangerous things
> (like rewire your own house whilst being unqualified) as long as you only
> subject yourself to the results. But hey, who ever said our laws were
> either rational or consistent ;-)
Since this is an `obstacle to trade` (discriminating against British
companies which _need_ to reverse-engineer), I suppose it should be
possible to cancel that law in a European court. Did anyone try?
Best regards
Tuomo Takkula
__
Chalmers University of Technology
Computing Science
Eklandagatan 86
S-41296 Göteborg, Sweden
tu...@cs.chalmers.se
+46-31-772 1052 phone
+46-31-165 655 fax
Sundial Services
exceptions, laws are inspired by heavy business interests and
interpreted (poor blokes...) by the courts. Usually the two are at
extreme opposites, viz, "Blimey! WHAT have those $@%^$%! legislators
dreamed up NOW?!" ;-) [We humans make our lives SO complex....]
In the end, the X-box is a computer (a Windows-NT computer, no less) and
it certainly can and will be a host for Linux. And if Microsoft doesn't
like it, well, there are about 200 countries besides the United States
and Britain where there are no laws against a cadre of eager
kernel-hackers who (who knows?...) might have already finished the job
by now!
The DMCA is a wonderous example of industry-inspired legislation that,
when all is said and done, will not have done _one _damn _bit of good to
anyone -- except to provide the industry with a brief illusion of hope
that it could. (And thereby, to have merely delayed the onset of
reality.) Simply stated, "the music recording industry has tried to
outlaw the cassette tape."
Actually, there was a time when the music recording industry _did try to
outlaw the cassette tape. They also tried to outlaw the playing of
their songs on the radio! These ideas sound ludicrous now, but they
were "serious business" then.
The music recording industry and motion picture industries of today
cannot concieve of any possible use for the CD/DVD player than the
illegal reproduction of their wares, by the cadre of pirates that they
conjure in their own minds. Even though those pirates certainly _do
exist, and even though they sometimes draw great attention to
themselves, the music-buying and movie-buying public is still quite
willing to BUY music and movies. The only difference is, "the public
DOES call the shots, not the other way around."
If the recording and motion-picture industries would respect these moves
as "The Customer Hath Spoken," all would be well-and-good. But, human
nature being what it is, "they don't." At least, not at first.
In the end, the Internet will revolutionize the distribution of music
and movies alike, AND we consumers WILL happily pay for it. {Just as we
pay for water to be purified and piped-under-pressure to our homes, even
though "water is free."} But the industries in question _won't take
these changes lying-down. They will spend an inordinate amount of money
in lawyer's fees fighting these changes until they finally acquiesce ..
and prosper.
{Hmm... come to think of it, wasn't it the lawyers who said we had a
problem in the first place? ;-) }
Life goes on, in spite of us five-fingered humans. :->
Craig Kelley
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:47:15 GMT
> is...@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac) wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 14:25:20 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels <Stefaan...@ecc.lu>
> > wrote:
> > >It would seem to me that there is nothing illegal in that, even
> > >in the USA. I'm quite sure you can open any device you buy
> > >and tinker with it to your heart's content as long as you
> > >understand that doing so voids the warranty.
> > >
> >
> > Converting a DVD player to regionless operation seems to me a clear
> > case of manufacturing a device that can "circumvent a technological
> > measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under
> > this title. [Title 17 of the US Code]"
>
> Meseems you're not manufacturing a device. You're tinkering
> with your property. I've been told (by a Frenchman) that the
> French have this astute approach, where it's illegal to offer
> your services to convert DVD players to multizone, whereas it
> isn't illegal either to own such a beast, or do the conversion
> yourself. Hence the flock of Frenchmen buying multizone DVD
> players here in Luxembourg.
Then how does anyone ever find out how to do it? Wouldn't performing
this operation imply that someone trafficked in anti-circumvention
technology?
Besides, what's the difference between hardware and software anyway?
Computing hardware is an implementation of logic that does some such
thing. Is a flash-ROM hardware or software? Is a re-programmable IC
hardware or software? Is a path of light refracting material hardware
or software? Is a page on a book hardware or software?
I like the way you "see" it, but I don't think everyone sees it the
same way, especially Hollywood and many governments.
Craig Kelley
> The basic flaw in assumption which dooms copyright law today is the
> delusion that if whoever gives or gets it couldn't give or get it for
> free, they'd pay retail price for it. That's just plain stupid. But it
> is precisely the theory on which the modern implementation of copyright
> is based on.
I wouldn't say that's the basic flaw in its entirety. The basic flaw
is that they do not trust their customers, and because of thier
monopoly status they do not need our trust (yet). The tired warez
creed that "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is just a specific
instance of this flaw, because many would buy it if they couldn't
pirate it; the only thing up for debate is how many is "many"?
Should IP producers trust their customers? A good question, as yet
unanswered. I suppose we'll find out sooner or later -- as technology
advances, it'll become trivial to copy any "intellectual property".
Jeffrey Siegal
> Then how does anyone ever find out how to do it? Wouldn't performing
> this operation imply that someone trafficked in anti-circumvention
> technology?
It is an open question how far "traficking" goes (and indeed, how far a
law *can* Constitutionally go) toward restricting speech about
circumvention.
> Besides, what's the difference between hardware and software anyway?
> Computing hardware is an implementation of logic that does some such
> thing. Is a flash-ROM hardware or software? Is a re-programmable IC
> hardware or software? Is a path of light refracting material hardware
> or software? Is a page on a book hardware or software?
Clearly, a page on a book is subject to some measure of First Amendment
protection, though perhaps not absolute protection. No one couple
possibly disputes that. If one follows your suggestion that hardware is
the same thing as a page on a book, then laws attempting to restrict the
distribution of hardware would also be subject to Constitutional
scrutiny.
So, either the laws that govern books and hardware will be different
(with things like "software" somewhere in the middle), or laws that
govern hardware distribution will be subject to more Constitutional
limitations than is generally acknowledged today. No other
interpreation is possible.
T. Max Devlin
>T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net> writes:
>
>> The basic flaw in assumption which dooms copyright law today is the
>> delusion that if whoever gives or gets it couldn't give or get it for
>> free, they'd pay retail price for it. That's just plain stupid. But it
>> is precisely the theory on which the modern implementation of copyright
>> is based on.
>
>I wouldn't say that's the basic flaw in its entirety. The basic flaw
>is that they do not trust their customers, and because of thier
>monopoly status they do not need our trust (yet). The tired warez
>creed that "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is just a specific
>instance of this flaw, because many would buy it if they couldn't
>pirate it; the only thing up for debate is how many is "many"?
Hogwash. It has nothing to do with 'trust', nor was my comment any
description of a "basic flaw in its entirety", nor is your assumption
that "many" would purchase if they couldn't get a free copy is simply
ludicrous.
>Should IP producers trust their customers? A good question, as yet
>unanswered.
A stupid question, which requires no answer.
>I suppose we'll find out sooner or later -- as technology
>advances, it'll become trivial to copy any "intellectual property".
Yea, who knows, any day now they might invent the Internet. Duh.
Lee Sau Dan
Eric> Discs are software, subject to licensing agreements. Hence
Eric> the "FBI Warning"
The *contents* on the discs are software, but the disc -- the media --
itself is not. While IP laws put restrictions on what I can do with
the contents, they don't restrict me on what I do with the physical
media.
For example, I can burn it in a BBQ fire, microwave it, fly it for my
dog to pick up, etc. Don't tell me your country has laws which even
forbid doing such things on *physical* objects that you own (not
stolen).
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Lee Sau Dan
D> DVDs are not licensed any more than a book is. There are
D> certain rights that a purchaser acquires upon paying for the
D> tangible instantiation of any copyrighted work. Among them are
D> resale, private performance, etc.
So, I'm allowed to burn my DVDs in a stove. And I'm allowed to use
them as floor tiles. As long as I bought them, not stole them, I have
the right to use them these ways.
But how about renting? I can buy books and then rent them out. How
about DVD and softwares?
D> The "FBI Warning," OTOH, has nothing to do with licensing and
D> is simply a statement of the copyright holder's rights under
D> the law, which forbids anyone else from distributing copies.
D> (Notice I didn't write, "making copies," which is expressly
D> *permitted* under the American Home Recording Act.)
You mean, "distributing but not producing copies" is forbidden? So,
even if I bought 1000 DVD's legitimately from a shop at *full price*,
in real cash, and then give them away free to beggars on the street,
that would be a violation of the laws? How come?
Jeffrey Siegal
>>>>>>"Eric" == Eric S Johnson <du...@havenmud.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>
> Eric> Discs are software, subject to licensing agreements. Hence
> Eric> the "FBI Warning"
>
> The *contents* on the discs are software, but the disc -- the media --
> itself is not. While IP laws put restrictions on what I can do with
> the contents, they don't restrict me on what I do with the physical
> media.
>
> For example, I can burn it in a BBQ fire, microwave it, fly it for my
> dog to pick up, etc. Don't tell me your country has laws which even
> forbid doing such things on *physical* objects that you own (not
> stolen).
The law does prohibit modifying the disc to create a derivative work.
In many cases such modification might be fair use, or it might be too
insignificant an issue to be enforced, but the law is there.
Jeffrey Siegal
> But how about renting? I can buy books and then rent them out. How
> about DVD and softwares?
You are allowed, without permission, to rent DVDs but not software.
Jeffrey Siegal
> You mean, "distributing but not producing copies" is forbidden? So,
> even if I bought 1000 DVD's legitimately from a shop at *full price*,
> in real cash, and then give them away free to beggars on the street,
> that would be a violation of the laws? How come?
Under the first sale doctrine, you are allowed to *re*-distribute copies
which have already been legally distributed. Once the copy has been
sold once, the right of distribution is exhausted. However, if you made
the copy yourself, even if you did so legally, you are not permitted to
distribute it (to the public; private distribution is not restricted
under copyright) without permission.
Mike Ralls
OK, everone here seems to know a fair amount about DVD's, so I'll ask a
question. Can I have a friend bring me a DVD player from America to
Japan? I can't order one off of Amazon.com, but is it against customs
for someone to just bring it over?
Thanks,
Mike
Isaac
>
>The law does prohibit modifying the disc to create a derivative work.
>In many cases such modification might be fair use, or it might be too
>insignificant an issue to be enforced, but the law is there.
I vaguely recall a case where cutting out photos and gluing them to tiles
was considered to create a derivative work.
Isaac
Sundial Services
allows you to do so. That's the key.
As I've heard it described to me, the bright-line rule in copyrights is
whether (a) your use of the work is consistent with what the copyright
owner intended; and (b) your use of the work precludes the copyright
owner from being able to engage in similar commerce with other people.
For example, if you rented a bunch of DVDs, then sat on the sidewalk
outside the rental store lending those copies out like a librarian, you
could be estopped from doing that -- because your actions are
effectively preventing the video store from engaging in further rentals
and obtaining the proceeds thereof.
As far as re-selling software is concerned, it gets a little murkier:
you do _buy a disc in a store, which treats it like other merchandise.
Microsoft is taking a hard-line stance on such things right now, but I
think that "Mister Market" will be the ultimate judge of that. It just
doesn't pay to make your products obnoxious to buy.
D. C. Sessions
Only if displayed for the public, which is one of the exclusive rights of
the copyright holder.
--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
+----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Jeffrey Siegal
>>
>>Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But how about renting? I can buy books and then rent them out. How
>>>about DVD and softwares?
>>>
>>You are allowed, without permission, to rent DVDs but not software.
>>
> You are allowed to do that because the licensor -- the movie company --
> allows you to do so. That's the key.
You are mistaken. You are allowed to rent out DVDs *without permission*
because the copyright law says so.
T. Max Devlin
I think the point was that you don't have to make the copies yourself.
If they were not purchased as authorized copies, you cannot distribute
them, and are liable under copyright law whether you produced them or
are only distributing them.
Craig Kelley
> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Craig Kelley say:
> >T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net> writes:
> >
> >> The basic flaw in assumption which dooms copyright law today is the
> >> delusion that if whoever gives or gets it couldn't give or get it for
> >> free, they'd pay retail price for it. That's just plain stupid. But it
> >> is precisely the theory on which the modern implementation of copyright
> >> is based on.
> >
> >I wouldn't say that's the basic flaw in its entirety. The basic flaw
> >is that they do not trust their customers, and because of thier
> >monopoly status they do not need our trust (yet). The tired warez
> >creed that "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is just a specific
> >instance of this flaw, because many would buy it if they couldn't
> >pirate it; the only thing up for debate is how many is "many"?
>
> Hogwash. It has nothing to do with 'trust',
Indeed it does. If everyone trusted everyone else, this wouldn't be
an issue at all because there wouldn't be any technological copyright
restrictions.
> nor was my comment any description of a "basic flaw in its
> entirety",
I know. If you'd read my followup you'd know that as well.
> nor is your assumption that "many" would purchase if they couldn't
> get a free copy is simply ludicrous.
No it isn't. I know of at least a few occurances personally, so it
does happen. I also know of people who bought albums because they
heard a few songs on Napster, so it works the other way too.
> >Should IP producers trust their customers? A good question, as yet
> >unanswered.
>
> A stupid question, which requires no answer.
Insightful comment...
> >I suppose we'll find out sooner or later -- as technology
> >advances, it'll become trivial to copy any "intellectual property".
>
> Yea, who knows, any day now they might invent the Internet. Duh.
It's not trivial to copy a DVD over the internet. It's not trivial to
download Photoshop 6. Perhaps you have a different definition of
"trivial" (here we go again).
When I say trivial, I mean that your average
know-nothing-about-computers will be able to click on a button and
download pretty much anything they want (much like Morpheus does for
media right now -- although finding things other than songs on
Morpheus is very iffy, and non-trivial).
Then there are 3 other limitations: First, most people are still on
modems which is an obvious limiting factor. Secondly, even "high
bandwidth" solutions like DSL or Cable are still far too slow to
download a DVD-ish creation without it being compressed (divX or
otherwise), and/or disconnections (enter GetRight or whatever).
Thirdly, provider bandwidth is generally flaky (who wants to devote a
pipe to give stuff away for free with no return?).
The internet may well be the technology that brings this triviality to
the common, but it is by no means there yet. You still need "skilz",
to use their vernacular, in order to download most anything other than
MP3 songs. When it become *trivial* to download all intellecutal
property, these issues are going to become more intense.
David
<i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
> Should IP producers trust their customers? A good question, as yet
> unanswered. I suppose we'll find out sooner or later -- as technology
> advances, it'll become trivial to copy any "intellectual property".
De-lurking a moment...
If you expect all intellectual property (i.e., computer software, music,
film, books, etc.) to be easily copied in the future, what do you expect
such businesses to base their royalties and profits on?
Madonna, I'm sure, isn't going to work for free, and I doubt she would be
willing to live on concert and T-shirt licensing revenues. Do you expect
Steven Spielberg, for instance, to produce films when there is no profit
to be expected, and thus little financing available for production? What
model do you expect and/or want to replace the status quo?
David Z
Houston TX
Jeffrey Siegal
> Do you expect
> Steven Spielberg, for instance, to produce films when there is no profit
> to be expected, and thus little financing available for production? What
> model do you expect and/or want to replace the status quo?
Steven Spielberg really doesn't need IP to make money, although he makes
more money as a result (from video sales). Theatrical releases could
exist pretty much unchanged using only contracts between distributors
and movie theaters.
David Masterson
You presume that "theatrical releases" will be made through movie
theaters in the future and that the theater would, thus, prevent
unlimited copying of the movie. In the future, why go to the theater
when most people (or their neighbors) will have personal digital
playback systems to rival the theater experience? When that becomes
more of the norm, then Steven Spielberg (etc.) will have to depend
more on the sale of copies of the release and, thus, IP is important.
--
David Masterson dmaster AT synopsys DOT com
Sr. R&D Engineer Synopsys, Inc.
Software Engineering Sunnyvale, CA
The Ghost In The Machine
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
wrote
on 20 Nov 2001 09:05:02 +0100
<m3bshyt...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>:
>>>>>> "Eric" == Eric S Johnson <du...@havenmud.com> writes:
>
> Eric> Discs are software, subject to licensing agreements. Hence
> Eric> the "FBI Warning"
>
>The *contents* on the discs are software, but the disc -- the media --
>itself is not. While IP laws put restrictions on what I can do with
>the contents, they don't restrict me on what I do with the physical
>media.
>
>For example, I can burn it in a BBQ fire, microwave it, fly it for my
>dog to pick up, etc. Don't tell me your country has laws which even
>forbid doing such things on *physical* objects that you own (not
>stolen).
But can you *copy* it? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- i.e. read it and transfer the data to a writable blank
EAC code #191 8d:05h:16m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
Jim Richardson
>>>>>> "D" == D C Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> writes:
>
> D> DVDs are not licensed any more than a book is. There are
> D> certain rights that a purchaser acquires upon paying for the
> D> tangible instantiation of any copyrighted work. Among them are
> D> resale, private performance, etc.
>
> So, I'm allowed to burn my DVDs in a stove. And I'm allowed to use
> them as floor tiles. As long as I bought them, not stole them, I have
> the right to use them these ways.
>
> But how about renting? I can buy books and then rent them out. How
> about DVD and softwares?
>
actually, most book copyrights exclude renting them out, there's an
exception for libraries, but I am not sure how they define library.
>
> D> The "FBI Warning," OTOH, has nothing to do with licensing and
> D> is simply a statement of the copyright holder's rights under
> D> the law, which forbids anyone else from distributing copies.
> D> (Notice I didn't write, "making copies," which is expressly
> D> *permitted* under the American Home Recording Act.)
>
> You mean, "distributing but not producing copies" is forbidden? So,
> even if I bought 1000 DVD's legitimately from a shop at *full price*,
> in real cash, and then give them away free to beggars on the street,
> that would be a violation of the laws? How come?
No, if you buy the copies legally, you can "distribute" them, what you
can't do is distribute the illegal copies, whether you made them, or
bought them from some guy in Taiwan.
T. Max Devlin
>> > But how about renting? I can buy books and then rent them out. How
>> > about DVD and softwares?
>>
>> You are allowed, without permission, to rent DVDs but not software.
Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Sundial Services say:
>You are allowed to do that because the licensor -- the movie company --
>allows you to do so. That's the key.
That is false. You are allowed to do that because there is no law
saying you are not allowed to do that. There is, however, a specific
statute which states that it is illegal to rent software without the
explicit authorization of the copyright owner.
T. Max Devlin
Actually, the law doesn't say you can't. Not quite the same as saying
you can. It would be a pedant point, if we weren't talking about the
law; in law it makes a difference.
Isaac
>
>actually, most book copyrights exclude renting them out, there's an
>exception for libraries, but I am not sure how they define library.
There's no such thing as a publisher's book copyright. Perhaps the
copyright holder tries to assert more rights than he has, or tries
to claim that he has licensed a work to you with some restrictions
that aren't a part of copyright law, but copyright is defined
by statute and court decisions and not by a publisher's statements.
Isaac
Isaac
>In <slrn9vkl7...@latveria.castledoom.org> Isaac posted:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 02:36:21 -0800, Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>The law does prohibit modifying the disc to create a derivative work.
>>>In many cases such modification might be fair use, or it might be too
>>>insignificant an issue to be enforced, but the law is there.
>>
>> I vaguely recall a case where cutting out photos and gluing them to tiles
>> was considered to create a derivative work.
>
>Only if displayed for the public, which is one of the exclusive rights of
>the copyright holder.
It's a derivative work whether it's displayed or not.
Perhaps you are suggesting that infringement depends on whether or not
the derivative work is displayed to the public. I'm not so sure that's
true either, because it is the excluse right of the copyright holder
to do the following:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Isaac
rosignol
David Masterson <dma...@synopsys.com> wrote:
[zap]
> You presume that "theatrical releases" will be made through movie
> theaters in the future and that the theater would, thus, prevent
> unlimited copying of the movie. In the future, why go to the theater
> when most people (or their neighbors) will have personal digital
> playback systems to rival the theater experience?
'cuz I like lines, standing outin the rain, sticky floors, chattering
teenagers throwing popcorn, $4 sodas, screaming babies, cramped seats,
out-of-focus projectors and too-loud soundsystems?
Yeah, you're right. In the long run, theaters are doomed.
> When that becomes
> more of the norm, then Steven Spielberg (etc.) will have to depend
> more on the sale of copies of the release and, thus, IP is important.
Wasn't that kind of the idea behind whatzitcalled, Divix? Making money
based on how often customers watch a movie, instead of a one-time
sale...
--
al Qaeda delenda est
Mark Kent
>In article <m1r8qu1...@inconnu.isu.edu>, Craig Kelley
><i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Should IP producers trust their customers? A good question, as yet
>> unanswered. I suppose we'll find out sooner or later -- as technology
>> advances, it'll become trivial to copy any "intellectual property".
>
>
>De-lurking a moment...
>
>If you expect all intellectual property (i.e., computer software, music,
>film, books, etc.) to be easily copied in the future, what do you expect
>such businesses to base their royalties and profits on?
I recall that music, films and books are covered by copyright law, are
they not?
What are 'such businesses'? copyright law was created to prevent large
companies from stealing the work of individuals. Using it to protect
large companies seems at odds with its intended purpose.
>
>Madonna, I'm sure, isn't going to work for free, and I doubt she would be
>willing to live on concert and T-shirt licensing revenues. Do you expect
>Steven Spielberg, for instance, to produce films when there is no profit
>to be expected, and thus little financing available for production? What
>model do you expect and/or want to replace the status quo?
The status quo seems to depend on using copyright law in a way
which it was never in tended for. I'd like companies to put some of
their considerable wealth into considering ways other than censorship
and removal of individual freedoms as a business model.
I'm not really interested in what Maddona may be willing to do, I'm
interested in what is reasonable.
--
Mark Kent
Take out the ham to mail me.
David Masterson
> In article <uadxh4...@synopsys.com>,
> David Masterson <dma...@synopsys.com> wrote:
> [zap]
ouch!
>> You presume that "theatrical releases" will be made through movie
>> theaters in the future and that the theater would, thus, prevent
>> unlimited copying of the movie. In the future, why go to the
>> theater when most people (or their neighbors) will have personal
>> digital playback systems to rival the theater experience?
[zap] :-P
>> When that becomes more of the norm, then Steven Spielberg (etc.)
>> will have to depend more on the sale of copies of the release and,
>> thus, IP is important.
> Wasn't that kind of the idea behind whatzitcalled, Divix? Making
> money based on how often customers watch a movie, instead of a
> one-time sale...
Ahh, but that presumes high-speed Internet connections where you can
download a movie in a convenient amount of time (which, I suppose, is
coming and I forgot about that :-\ ).
David Masterson
> David <davi...@mindspring.com> espoused:
>> If you expect all intellectual property (i.e., computer software,
>> music, film, books, etc.) to be easily copied in the future, what
>> do you expect such businesses to base their royalties and profits
>> on?
> I recall that music, films and books are covered by copyright law,
> are they not?
So are you suggesting they sue under copyright law protections?
> What are 'such businesses'? copyright law was created to prevent
> large companies from stealing the work of individuals. Using it to
> protect large companies seems at odds with its intended purpose.
Even when the individual works for a large company?
BTW, what is "large"? 10 people? 100? 1000? 10000? 100000?
The law should apply to everyone. We don't need to start making
artificial distinctions based upon "large" and "small".
>> Madonna, I'm sure, isn't going to work for free, and I doubt she
>> would be willing to live on concert and T-shirt licensing revenues.
> The status quo seems to depend on using copyright law in a way which
> it was never in tended for. I'd like companies to put some of their
> considerable wealth into considering ways other than censorship and
> removal of individual freedoms as a business model.
Regardless of how much wealth they have (and that seems like another
"large" and "small" argument), developing "other ways" assumes that
someone has an idea for a (well thought out) way. If you have such a
way, this is the forum to discuss it...
> I'm not really interested in what Maddona may be willing to do, I'm
> interested in what is reasonable.
Who determines the definition of "reasonable"?
Jeffrey Siegal
>>>>>>Jeffrey Siegal writes:
>>>>>>
>>David wrote:
>>
>
>>>Do you expect Steven Spielberg, for instance, to produce films when
>>>there is no profit to be expected, and thus little financing
>>>available for production? What model do you expect and/or want to
>>>replace the status quo?
>>>
>
>>Steven Spielberg really doesn't need IP to make money, although he
>>makes more money as a result (from video sales). Theatrical
>>releases could exist pretty much unchanged using only contracts
>>between distributors and movie theaters.
>>
>
> You presume that "theatrical releases" will be made through movie
> theaters in the future and that the theater would, thus, prevent
> unlimited copying of the movie. In the future, why go to the theater
> when most people (or their neighbors) will have personal digital
> playback systems to rival the theater experience? When that becomes
> more of the norm, then Steven Spielberg (etc.) will have to depend
> more on the sale of copies of the release and, thus, IP is important.
No, I don't presume that. I merely point out that Spielberg *could*
continue to make money that way. I'm not saying that he necessarily *will*.
Many people already have playback systems to "rival" the theater
experience (which is not to say they are as good in every respect), yet
Spielberg almost universally chooses to release his work in theaters
instead. Were it not for IP, he would likely not releases his work
outside of theaters at all, and even more people would go to theaters to
see it. Keep in mind that nothing here assumes that "theaters" maintain
their present form. There might be much smaller "theaters" in
residential neighborhoods. People might even allow "theaters" to be
installed in their homes, but still owned and/or controlled by the
content providers, the way people rent postage machines.
Is this necessarily the best system for society? No. But it clearly
refutes the notion that without IP Spielberg would not produce films
because "there is no profit to be expected." There is more than one way
to make a profit.
Jeffrey Siegal
>>>>But how about renting? I can buy books and then rent them out. How
>>>>about DVD and softwares?
>>>>
>>>You are allowed, without permission, to rent DVDs but not software.
>>>
>
> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Sundial Services say:
>
>>You are allowed to do that because the licensor -- the movie company --
>>allows you to do so. That's the key.
>>
>
> That is false. You are allowed to do that because there is no law
> saying you are not allowed to do that. There is, however, a specific
> statute which states that it is illegal to rent software without the
> explicit authorization of the copyright owner.
The law explicitly says that the owner of a copy "is entitled" to rent
it out. Interpret that as you wish.
phil hunt
>In article <m1r8qu1...@inconnu.isu.edu>, Craig Kelley
><i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Should IP producers trust their customers? A good question, as yet
>> unanswered. I suppose we'll find out sooner or later -- as technology
>> advances, it'll become trivial to copy any "intellectual property".
>
>
>De-lurking a moment...
>
>If you expect all intellectual property (i.e., computer software, music,
>film, books, etc.) to be easily copied in the future, what do you expect
>such businesses to base their royalties and profits on?
Businesses run on the pay-per-item model of funding intellectual
property
>Madonna, I'm sure, isn't going to work for free, and I doubt she would be
>willing to live on concert and T-shirt licensing revenues.
It would be terrible for the poor dear to have to manage on only $1
million a year. My heart bleeds for her.
> Do you expect
>Steven Spielberg, for instance, to produce films when there is no profit
>to be expected,
Revenue from Star Wars merchandise greatly exceeds that from the
actual films themselves. In any case, peoplev would still pay to
go to the cinema, as they are paying for the overall experience, not
just for seeing the film.
> and thus little financing available for production? What
>model do you expect and/or want to replace the status quo?
Ones that already exist now.
Films/audiovisual productions: paid for by adverts, merchandising,
cinema screenings, state funding (e.g. the BBC)
Books: most authors already don't earn a living wage from their
books but they write them anyway, presumably for other reasons
such as ego gratification. There are also schemes such as authors
being paid according to the number of times their books are
lent from libraries.
Music: live performances, merchandising, endorsements.
--
*** Philip Hunt *** ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ***
David Masterson
[...on the use of theaters for IP control...]
> Many people already have playback systems to "rival" the theater
> experience (which is not to say they are as good in every respect),
> yet Spielberg almost universally chooses to release his work in
> theaters instead. Were it not for IP, he would likely not releases
> his work outside of theaters at all, and even more people would go
> to theaters to see it. Keep in mind that nothing here assumes that
> "theaters" maintain their present form. There might be much smaller
> "theaters" in residential neighborhoods. People might even allow
> "theaters" to be installed in their homes, but still owned and/or
> controlled by the content providers, the way people rent postage
> machines.
> Is this necessarily the best system for society? No. But it
> clearly refutes the notion that without IP Spielberg would not
> produce films because "there is no profit to be expected." There is
> more than one way to make a profit.
I can agree with this. Now if we could only come up with a "best for
society, best for producer" option.
BTW, is violation of IP rights a criminal or civil case? Without IP,
would violations of the contract be more or less severe?
David Masterson
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:41:46 -0500, David <davi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> If you expect all intellectual property (i.e., computer software,
>> music, film, books, etc.) to be easily copied in the future, what
>> do you expect such businesses to base their royalties and profits
>> on?
> Businesses run on the pay-per-item model of funding intellectual
> property
Come again? Is this the "first person going to the theater pays for
the cost to make the whole movie" model? There are some things that
this model works for, but there are many that it doesn't.
Jeffrey Siegal
> BTW, is violation of IP rights a criminal or civil case? Without IP,
> would violations of the contract be more or less severe?
In almost all instances, a civil case. While criminal copyright
infringement exists, it is rarely used, and usually only against people
who run factories producing counterfeit copies. (The NET act
criminalized some forms of casual distribution, for example over the
internet, but I'm not aware that it has ever been used.)
Criminal offenses is not essential to IP. There is no such thing as
criminal patent infringement in the US, for example, though in some
other countries it does exist.
As for whether breaching a contract would be more or less severe than IP
violations, that strikes me as a separate public policy issue.
T. Max Devlin
>T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net> writes:
>> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Craig Kelley say:
>> >T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> The basic flaw in assumption which dooms copyright law today is the
>> >> delusion that if whoever gives or gets it couldn't give or get it for
>> >> free, they'd pay retail price for it. That's just plain stupid. But it
>> >> is precisely the theory on which the modern implementation of copyright
>> >> is based on.
>> >
>> >I wouldn't say that's the basic flaw in its entirety. The basic flaw
>> >is that they do not trust their customers, and because of thier
>> >monopoly status they do not need our trust (yet). The tired warez
>> >creed that "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is just a specific
>> >instance of this flaw, because many would buy it if they couldn't
>> >pirate it; the only thing up for debate is how many is "many"?
>>
>> Hogwash. It has nothing to do with 'trust',
>
>Indeed it does. If everyone trusted everyone else, this wouldn't be
>an issue at all because there wouldn't be any technological copyright
>restrictions.
Let's deal with reality, shall we, not some hypothetical ideal world you
concoct in your head. It is not a lack of 'trust' that causes producers
to attempt to restrict [putatively lawful] access to intellectual
property; it is simple profiteering.
>> nor was my comment any description of a "basic flaw in its
>> entirety",
>
>I know. If you'd read my followup you'd know that as well.
I did. I didn't.
>> nor is your assumption that "many" would purchase if they couldn't
>> get a free copy is simply ludicrous.
>
>No it isn't. I know of at least a few occurances personally, so it
>does happen. I also know of people who bought albums because they
>heard a few songs on Napster, so it works the other way too.
Which is to say, it is.
>> >Should IP producers trust their customers? A good question, as yet
>> >unanswered.
>>
>> A stupid question, which requires no answer.
>
>Insightful comment...
I doubt you understood it.
>> >I suppose we'll find out sooner or later -- as technology
>> >advances, it'll become trivial to copy any "intellectual property".
>>
>> Yea, who knows, any day now they might invent the Internet. Duh.
>
>It's not trivial to copy a DVD over the internet. It's not trivial to
>download Photoshop 6. Perhaps you have a different definition of
>"trivial" (here we go again).
No matter how far technology advances, there will be instances of it
being non-trivial to copy huge great mounds of data over the Internet.
That has nothing to do with the issue, and is an argument ad absurdum.
>When I say trivial, I mean that your average
>know-nothing-about-computers will be able to click on a button and
>download pretty much anything they want (much like Morpheus does for
>media right now -- although finding things other than songs on
>Morpheus is very iffy, and non-trivial).
Yup, just like now.
>Then there are 3 other limitations: First, most people are still on
>modems which is an obvious limiting factor. Secondly, even "high
>bandwidth" solutions like DSL or Cable are still far too slow to
>download a DVD-ish creation without it being compressed (divX or
>otherwise), and/or disconnections (enter GetRight or whatever).
>Thirdly, provider bandwidth is generally flaky (who wants to devote a
>pipe to give stuff away for free with no return?).
We are discussing the nature of copyright. I hardly think that the size
is a very important issue.
>The internet may well be the technology that brings this triviality to
>the common, but it is by no means there yet. You still need "skilz",
>to use their vernacular, in order to download most anything other than
>MP3 songs. When it become *trivial* to download all intellecutal
>property, these issues are going to become more intense.
Oh, it must be trivial to download *all* intellectual property, huh?
You actually think that is possible? And we must wait until then before
we consider the copyright issues of the Internet to be "intense"?
Get a grip, dude.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
T. Max Devlin
>In article <m1r8qu1...@inconnu.isu.edu>, Craig Kelley
><i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Should IP producers trust their customers? A good question, as yet
>> unanswered. I suppose we'll find out sooner or later -- as technology
>> advances, it'll become trivial to copy any "intellectual property".
>
>De-lurking a moment...
>
>If you expect all intellectual property (i.e., computer software, music,
>film, books, etc.) to be easily copied in the future, what do you expect
>such businesses to base their royalties and profits on?
Convenience and value-add. These are the only things that ever support
honest profit in a free market.
>Madonna, I'm sure, isn't going to work for free, and I doubt she would be
>willing to live on concert and T-shirt licensing revenues.
"Willing" is a bit soft of a concept to be trying to use here. The fact
of the matter is, she *could* live, quite comfortably, on concert and
licensing revenues.
>Do you expect
>Steven Spielberg, for instance, to produce films when there is no profit
>to be expected, and thus little financing available for production?
Depends on how much is to be made on licensing, and how secure the
investment is.
>What
>model do you expect and/or want to replace the status quo?
The status quo, sans profiteering.
T. Max Devlin
>>>>>> Jeffrey Siegal writes:
>> David wrote:
>
>>> Do you expect Steven Spielberg, for instance, to produce films when
>>> there is no profit to be expected, and thus little financing
>>> available for production? What model do you expect and/or want to
>>> replace the status quo?
>
>> Steven Spielberg really doesn't need IP to make money, although he
>> makes more money as a result (from video sales). Theatrical
>> releases could exist pretty much unchanged using only contracts
>> between distributors and movie theaters.
>
>You presume that "theatrical releases" will be made through movie
>theaters in the future and that the theater would, thus, prevent
>unlimited copying of the movie.
And you presume it won't.
>In the future, why go to the theater
>when most people (or their neighbors) will have personal digital
>playback systems to rival the theater experience?
For the same reasons we still go to theaters, despite the much greater
convenience of video tapes and DVDs. You are simply mis-identifying
what constitutes 'the theater experience'.
>When that becomes
>more of the norm, then Steven Spielberg (etc.) will have to depend
>more on the sale of copies of the release and, thus, IP is important.
No, then the ticket price at theaters just goes up. Or else poor Steven
lives on toy licensing. Big fat hairy deal.
T. Max Devlin
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:11:48 -0700, D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>>In <slrn9vkl7...@latveria.castledoom.org> Isaac posted:
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 02:36:21 -0800, Jeffrey Siegal <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The law does prohibit modifying the disc to create a derivative work.
>>>>In many cases such modification might be fair use, or it might be too
>>>>insignificant an issue to be enforced, but the law is there.
>>>
>>> I vaguely recall a case where cutting out photos and gluing them to tiles
>>> was considered to create a derivative work.
>>
>>Only if displayed for the public, which is one of the exclusive rights of
>>the copyright holder.
>
>It's a derivative work whether it's displayed or not.
It isn't even a 'work' until it is displayed or distributed. Copyright
is not metaphysics; it is book-keeping.
>Perhaps you are suggesting that infringement depends on whether or not
>the derivative work is displayed to the public.
Not suggesting; he was *stating* precisely that. Because, of course,
that's the way it works.
>I'm not so sure that's
>true either, because it is the excluse right of the copyright holder
>to do the following:
>
> (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Ooh! Look out! He's got a Right! And it's loaded!
Later on in that statue, they point out how this right is only infringed
by commercial distribution or public display, and you'll have to go back
to the Constitution itself to see that all of these issues are
secondary, anyway, to whether authors get paid. Copyright is not
metaphysics, it is book-keeping. So long as the author gets paid, the
statutes mean little or nothing.
Jeffrey Siegal
> It isn't even a 'work' until it is displayed or distributed. Copyright
> is not metaphysics; it is book-keeping.
That's wrong. It is a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium
of expression.
> Not suggesting; he was *stating* precisely that. Because, of course,
> that's the way it works.
Please, people, don't get your understanding of "the way it works" from Max.
rosignol
David Masterson <dma...@synopsys.com> wrote:
> >>>>> rosignol writes:
>
> > In article <uadxh4...@synopsys.com>,
> > David Masterson <dma...@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
> > [zap]
>
> ouch!
Blame the people who wrote 'letter invaders'. <g>
[zap]
> > Wasn't that kind of the idea behind whatzitcalled, Divix? Making
> > money based on how often customers watch a movie, instead of a
> > one-time sale...
>
> Ahh, but that presumes high-speed Internet connections where you can
> download a movie in a convenient amount of time (which, I suppose, is
> coming and I forgot about that :-\ ).
Nah, that was video-on-demand. There are some people who are still
trying to figure out a way to make it work, but the bandwith just isn't
there. Divix sidestepped the bandwidth issue by selling the DVDs for
cheap, and it phoned the central billing computer with your credit card
number whenever you watched a Divix disc.
T. Max Devlin
Software? I don't recall any such entitlement. Could you provide some
substantiation? Are you sure you interpreted the term 'owner'
correctly?
T. Max Devlin
>>>>>> Mark Kent writes:
>> David <davi...@mindspring.com> espoused:
>
>>> If you expect all intellectual property (i.e., computer software,
>>> music, film, books, etc.) to be easily copied in the future, what
>>> do you expect such businesses to base their royalties and profits
>>> on?
>
>> I recall that music, films and books are covered by copyright law,
>> are they not?
>
>So are you suggesting they sue under copyright law protections?
Why would he? How could he? What makes you think he is?
It seems to me that he is pointing out that since music, films, and
books continue to make money on royalties, despite the availability of
audio and video recorders and copy machines, there is no reason to
presume that software produces must have end user licensing to sustain
profit.
>> What are 'such businesses'? copyright law was created to prevent
>> large companies from stealing the work of individuals. Using it to
>> protect large companies seems at odds with its intended purpose.
>
>Even when the individual works for a large company?
>
>BTW, what is "large"? 10 people? 100? 1000? 10000? 100000?
>
>The law should apply to everyone. We don't need to start making
>artificial distinctions based upon "large" and "small".
You are claiming that there is no distinction between large companies
and individuals? Or are you suggesting that the difference between
large companies and small companies are entirely a matter of number of
employees?
>>> Madonna, I'm sure, isn't going to work for free, and I doubt she
>>> would be willing to live on concert and T-shirt licensing revenues.
>
>> The status quo seems to depend on using copyright law in a way which
>> it was never in tended for. I'd like companies to put some of their
>> considerable wealth into considering ways other than censorship and
>> removal of individual freedoms as a business model.
>
>Regardless of how much wealth they have (and that seems like another
>"large" and "small" argument), developing "other ways" assumes that
>someone has an idea for a (well thought out) way. If you have such a
>way, this is the forum to discuss it...
That's up to those that want to make money to figure out. We need not
second-guess them.
>> I'm not really interested in what Maddona may be willing to do, I'm
>> interested in what is reasonable.
>
>Who determines the definition of "reasonable"?
Hmmm. Are you saying you do not know the difference between what is
reasonable and what is unreasonable?
<It ain't quite as easy as it looks, but you're doing great, Mark. I
hope I didn't step on your toes.>
Love
- Max
Jeffrey Siegal
> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Jeffrey Siegal say:
>
>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>But how about renting? I can buy books and then rent them out. How
>>>>>>about DVD and softwares?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>You are allowed, without permission, to rent DVDs but not software.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Sundial Services say:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You are allowed to do that because the licensor -- the movie company --
>>>>allows you to do so. That's the key.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That is false. You are allowed to do that because there is no law
>>>saying you are not allowed to do that. There is, however, a specific
>>>statute which states that it is illegal to rent software without the
>>>explicit authorization of the copyright owner.
>>>
>>The law explicitly says that the owner of a copy "is entitled" to rent
>>it out. Interpret that as you wish.
>>
>
> Software? I don't recall any such entitlement. Could you provide some
> substantiation? Are you sure you interpreted the term 'owner'
> correctly?
No, not software. DVDs. Your claim was that you are allowed to do it
because there is no law saying that you are not allowed. That's true in
the sense that if there were no laws at all, you'd be allowed to do it,
but in if the section of the law saying you are entitled to do it were
removed, it would not be allowed.
T. Max Devlin
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> It isn't even a 'work' until it is displayed or distributed. Copyright
>> is not metaphysics; it is book-keeping.
>
>That's wrong.
Shit.
You mean 'mistaken', Jeff. PLEASE believe me.
>It is a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium
>of expression.
Ya, ya, ya. In theory. A cute little legal fiction. Don't base your
faith on it, dude.
>> Not suggesting; he was *stating* precisely that. Because, of course,
>> that's the way it works.
>
>Please, people, don't get your understanding of "the way it works" from Max.
Fuck no. Get your understanding of the way it works from real life.
Haven't you been reading? Sure, it just so happens that Max has a
better grasp on the way it works than most people. But it is real life,
not some imaginary ideal, that you should get your understanding of the
way it works from.
Not me, no.
Love
- Max
D. C. Sessions
What would you call a margin-annotated book?
The purchaser has purchased the right to make use of the instantiation
of the work, which necessarily means that the creator loses some control.
For instance, my reading a book to my children involves interpretation,
and interpretive reading is a derivative work. Other examples -- lots of
them -- exist in the law.
I think that this discussion has gone *way* OT, and if people are really
interested in the details of digital copyright they should read Lessig and
some of the other serious authors on the subject. (Great book by author
whose name I forget but she's Big News at Stanford Law.) Maybe join
or at least read the archives of DVD-discuss or one of the other digital
copyright mailing lists.
--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
+----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Jeffrey Siegal
> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Jeffrey Siegal say:
>
>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>>>It isn't even a 'work' until it is displayed or distributed. Copyright
>>>is not metaphysics; it is book-keeping.
>>>
>>That's wrong.
>
> Shit.
>
> You mean 'mistaken', Jeff. PLEASE believe me.
Wrong again.
3 : not according to truth or facts : INCORRECT <gave a wrong date>
>>It is a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium
>>of expression.
>
> Ya, ya, ya. In theory. A cute little legal fiction. Don't base your
> faith on it, dude.
If you want to understand copyright, which is a legal construction, it
is the legal *definition* (not "fiction") that matters.
However, I get the idea that you really don't want to understand. To
each his own.
Jeffrey Siegal
>> (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
>>
>
> What would you call a margin-annotated book?
A derivative work. Possibly fair use, possibly not.
> The purchaser has purchased the right to make use of the instantiation
> of the work, which necessarily means that the creator loses some control.
> For instance, my reading a book to my children involves interpretation,
> and interpretive reading is a derivative work.
It is not a derivative work until and unless it is fixed in a tangible
medium. Until you do so, you have not created a derivative work. Even
if you did create a tangible derivative work (say taping your reading
for your children), that might or might not be fair use.
T. Max Devlin
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Jeffrey Siegal say:
>>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>The law explicitly says that the owner of a copy "is entitled" to rent
>>>it out. Interpret that as you wish.
>>
>> Software? I don't recall any such entitlement. Could you provide some
>> substantiation? Are you sure you interpreted the term 'owner'
>> correctly?
>
>No, not software. DVDs.
My mistake.
>Your claim was that you are allowed to do it
>because there is no law saying that you are not allowed.
Indeed; if there is not a law preventing you from doing something, there
is no law which prevents you. That's called 'liberty'. There is a law
saying you are allowed to do anything that is not illegal. It is called
the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. (Not
to mention the Bill of Rights.)
>That's true in
>the sense that if there were no laws at all, you'd be allowed to do it,
No, no, no. If there is not a law *explicitly preventing you*, then you
need no 'allowance' or permission.
>but in if the section of the law saying you are entitled to do it were
>removed, it would not be allowed.
Only if the lawyers could convince the judge that I should not be so
entitled. Liberty. Cute trick. Does away with argument from
ignorance. A general prohibition is useless against a general right.
Jeffrey Siegal
>>That's true in
>>the sense that if there were no laws at all, you'd be allowed to do it,
>
> No, no, no. If there is not a law *explicitly preventing you*, then you
> need no 'allowance' or permission.
Congress has the clear authority, under the Constitution, to legislate in this
area. If despite having this authority, it declines to do so, then it is
allowing you act.
T. Max Devlin
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard Jeffrey Siegal say:
>>
>>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>
>>>>It isn't even a 'work' until it is displayed or distributed. Copyright
>>>>is not metaphysics; it is book-keeping.
>>>>
>>>That's wrong.
>>
>> Shit.
>>
>> You mean 'mistaken', Jeff. PLEASE believe me.
>
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
>In <slrn9vlnh...@latveria.castledoom.org> Isaac posted:
[...]
>I think that this discussion has gone *way* OT, and if people are really
>interested in the details of digital copyright they should read Lessig and
>some of the other serious authors on the subject. (Great book by author
Could it be Jessica Litman? I sure hope so.
http://www.msen.com/~litman/no.htm
http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/read.htm
Isaac
>> Perhaps you are suggesting that infringement depends on whether or not
>> the derivative work is displayed to the public. I'm not so sure that's
>> true either, because it is the excluse right of the copyright holder
>> to do the following:
>>
>> (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
>
>What would you call a margin-annotated book?
>
I'd call it a derivative work. Probably the defense of fair use would
be enough to defend any possible infringement. The infringement also
is something that an author/publisher isn't going to pursue anyway.
>The purchaser has purchased the right to make use of the instantiation
>of the work, which necessarily means that the creator loses some control.
True, but you haven't established that he loses the particular right
you discuss.
Isaac
Isaac
Assuming no changes in law, for contract breaches, there are essentially
no punitive damages and no extra punishments for willful actions that
breach the contract unless a tort is committed. The goal of contract
actions is often simply to give the non-breaching party what they
bargained for. The goal of tort actions may include punishment and
deterrence, but in some situations, contract law provides incentive to
breach contracts as long as the innocent party receives full value.
So my gross generalization would be that breaching a contract could
result in less severe punishment, but that's a really rough
approximation.
Isaac
D. C. Sessions
> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard D. C. Sessions say:
>>In <slrn9vlnh...@latveria.castledoom.org> Isaac posted:
> [...]
>>I think that this discussion has gone *way* OT, and if people are really
>>interested in the details of digital copyright they should read Lessig and
>>some of the other serious authors on the subject. (Great book by author
>>whose name I forget but she's Big News at Stanford Law.)[...]
>
> Could it be Jessica Litman? I sure hope so.
>
> http://www.msen.com/~litman/no.htm
> http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/read.htm
Yes! Thank you.
Brilliant writer.
T. Max Devlin
>
>>>That's true in
>>>the sense that if there were no laws at all, you'd be allowed to do it,
>>
>> No, no, no. If there is not a law *explicitly preventing you*, then you
>> need no 'allowance' or permission.
>Congress has the clear authority, under the Constitution, to legislate in this
>area.
And once they legislate, then fine. You don't think that means it is
illegal until Congress says it's legal, do you?
>If despite having this authority, it declines to do so, then it is
>allowing you act.
No 'despite' necessary. Congress has no authority whatsoever to tell me
what to do. They just say what is legal. I need no 'allowance' to act
at all, in any way I wish. Liberty, like I said. A wondrous thing.
Now, rhetorically, of course, we talk about being 'allowed' and being
'empowered' and being 'at liberty to', and even whether you "can" do
something, but in the real world, that's just quibbling. If there is
not an explicit law preventing, then the law allows, and Congress is
irrelevant.
Love
- Max
phil hunt
>>>>>> phil hunt writes:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:41:46 -0500, David <davi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>> If you expect all intellectual property (i.e., computer software,
>>> music, film, books, etc.) to be easily copied in the future, what
>>> do you expect such businesses to base their royalties and profits
>>> on?
>
>> Businesses run on the pay-per-item model of funding intellectual
>> property
>
>Come again? Is this the "first person going to the theater pays for
>the cost to make the whole movie" model?
No, it's: company makes something, then sells copies or viewings of
that thing to multiple people.
Rich Trouton
<mike...@hachigamenet.ne.jp> wrote:
> OK, everone here seems to know a fair amount about DVD's, so I'll ask a
> question. Can I have a friend bring me a DVD player from America to
> Japan? I can't order one off of Amazon.com, but is it against customs
> for someone to just bring it over?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
As far as I know, it is not illegal to bring a DVD player from America
to Japan, as long as you don't intend on selling it or any other
commercial use. (IOW, it's for your personal use.)
I checked out the laws on this a year or so ago, when I was researching
import/export laws after a trip to the UK convinced me that the British
were being royally ripped off on things like electronics and computers.
I had the wild idea that I could import them from the States (where
thanks to differing tax laws the exact same product was 20 - 30%
cheaper.) Then I read the laws and started working on the problems of
different current and plugs and gave it up for a bad idea.
Rich
David Masterson
> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard David Masterson say:
>>>>>>> Mark Kent writes:
>>> David <davi...@mindspring.com> espoused:
>>>> If you expect all intellectual property (i.e., computer software,
>>>> music, film, books, etc.) to be easily copied in the future, what
>>>> do you expect such businesses to base their royalties and profits
>>>> on?
>>> I recall that music, films and books are covered by copyright law,
>>> are they not?
>> So are you suggesting they sue under copyright law protections?
> Why would he? How could he? What makes you think he is?
My question was meant to say that I didn't understand his question
(but I took a shot at an interpretation anyway). It seemed to me that
copyright law can be used to prevent illegal copying of IP, so, by
suggesting that they are covered by copyright law, I assumed he was
suggesting that the IP owners could always sue makers of illegal
copies (regardless of how easy it is to make the copy).
> It seems to me that he is pointing out that since music, films, and
> books continue to make money on royalties, despite the availability
> of audio and video recorders and copy machines, there is no reason
> to presume that software produces must have end user licensing to
> sustain profit.
The assumption, though, is that the ability to copy will become much
cheaper and easier and, therefore, more prevalent. Current technology
still has a significant cost (usually in time) and, so, its not as
prevalent as it could be. Are there any statistics on the percentage
of people who buy a copy of (say) a musical song (on CD, tape, or
whatever) versus all people "acquire" a copy of the song? (In other
words, how prevalent is illegal copying today?)
>>> What are 'such businesses'? copyright law was created to prevent
>>> large companies from stealing the work of individuals. Using it
>>> to protect large companies seems at odds with its intended
>>> purpose.
>> Even when the individual works for a large company?
> You are claiming that there is no distinction between large
> companies and individuals?
No, I'm asking whether he is making the distinction. The distinction
with respect to using copyright law to protect the IP of individuals
or corporations appears to be artificial to me.
>>>> Madonna, I'm sure, isn't going to work for free, and I doubt she
>>>> would be willing to live on concert and T-shirt licensing
>>>> revenues.
>>> The status quo seems to depend on using copyright law in a way
>>> which it was never in tended for. I'd like companies to put some
>>> of their considerable wealth into considering ways other than
>>> censorship and removal of individual freedoms as a business model.
>> Regardless of how much wealth they have (and that seems like
>> another "large" and "small" argument), developing "other ways"
>> assumes that someone has an idea for a (well thought out) way. If
>> you have such a way, this is the forum to discuss it...
> That's up to those that want to make money to figure out. We need
> not second-guess them.
At the moment, no it's not for them to figure out. They already have
a way that works pretty well for them. If you want that changed, then
you have to present an alternative that makes sense to them as well as
to you.
>>> I'm not really interested in what Maddona may be willing to do,
>>> I'm interested in what is reasonable.
>> Who determines the definition of "reasonable"?
> Hmmm. Are you saying you do not know the difference between what is
> reasonable and what is unreasonable?
That's not the question. The implication was that we should put into
place rules that are "reasonable" regardless of what people like
Madonna think. It is not "reasonable" to expect that rules will be
"reasonable" to everyone -- they only have to have majority
agreement.
David Masterson
Ahh. And what restrictions (if any) are on the copies? Once I buy a
copy, could I give copies of it away?
David
ma...@NOHAM.otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark Kent) wrote:
> I recall that music, films and books are covered by copyright law, are
> they not?
Yes, but if *every consumer* has the ability and skills to copy any piece
of IP they get their hands on for their friends, neighbors, enemies,
whoever, the copyright law will be basically unenforceable. The people
selling counterfeits on the street could be busted, sure.
> What are 'such businesses'? copyright law was created to prevent large
> companies from stealing the work of individuals. Using it to protect
> large companies seems at odds with its intended purpose.
By 'such businesses' I mean the music, publishing, film and software
*industries*. The size of the business doesn't matter; current copyright
protection applies to the owner of the copyright. Most individual artists
sell their copyrights to a distributor who can actually distribute their
work. Madonna isn't keen on selling her albums door-to-door, either.
> I'm not really interested in what Maddona may be willing to do, I'm
> interested in what is reasonable.
Is it reasonable to ask people to work for free?
My point being, if IP producers (copyright owners) cannot anticipate a
profit on their work, they won't do it. Some will, sure. Are you looking
forward to the complete de-professionalization and amateuerization of all
music, film, television, and software? That may or may not end up being
beneficial to the general public. My guess is, some manner of ensuring
payment for IP products - likely more invasive - will be required. Or it
could be more benign, like getting movies online directly from
ParamountPictures.com, MaverickMusic.com, encrypted with "unbreakable"
codes.
David Z
Houston TX
David
ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil hunt) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:41:46 -0500, David <davi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Madonna, I'm sure, isn't going to work for free, and I doubt she would be
> >willing to live on concert and T-shirt licensing revenues.
>
> It would be terrible for the poor dear to have to manage on only $1
> million a year. My heart bleeds for her.
Madonna's just an example of a popular musician. Charlotte Church is
another. What I basically extrapolate generally from your statement and
others like it (discounting any anti-Madonna bias :-), is: "Once I have
the equipment to easily copy works of a popular artist, I deserve to have
the body of her work for free, without compensating her at all. I really
like Charlotte Church; she is one of the most talented and beautiful
voices around. Her music moves and inspires me and made an impact on the
way I look at the universe and relate to my fellow beings. Better yet, I
gyped the profiteering cunt out of $24."
> > Do you expect
> >Steven Spielberg, for instance, to produce films when there is no profit
> >to be expected,
>
> Revenue from Star Wars merchandise greatly exceeds that from the
> actual films themselves. In any case, peoplev would still pay to
> go to the cinema, as they are paying for the overall experience, not
> just for seeing the film.
While VCR's did not eliminate cinemas, they also were not *free* - a
powerful argument for staying at home. It's one way I can watch a movie
without hearing a cell phone, for one.
> > and thus little financing available for production? What
> >model do you expect and/or want to replace the status quo?
>
> Ones that already exist now.
>
> Films/audiovisual productions: paid for by adverts, merchandising,
> cinema screenings, state funding (e.g. the BBC)
State funding isn't going to wash in the US. Advertisements in the
movies? Another good argument for staying home.
> Books: most authors already don't earn a living wage from their
> books but they write them anyway, presumably for other reasons
> such as ego gratification. There are also schemes such as authors
> being paid according to the number of times their books are
> lent from libraries.
>
> Music: live performances, merchandising, endorsements.
So what do you expect these to cost, absent pre-recorded work revenues?
Big-ticket concert revenues were down this summer. There is a limit.
Saying that Madonna's pre-recorded music can be copied by anyone for free,
but a concert ticket costs $750 is not going to support the system for
long.
David Z
Houston TX
David
wrote:
> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard David say:
> >
> >If you expect all intellectual property (i.e., computer software, music,
> >film, books, etc.) to be easily copied in the future, what do you expect
> >such businesses to base their royalties and profits on?
>
> Convenience and value-add. These are the only things that ever support
> honest profit in a free market.
Can you define "honest profit" for me?
> >Madonna, I'm sure, isn't going to work for free, and I doubt she would be
> >willing to live on concert and T-shirt licensing revenues.
>
> "Willing" is a bit soft of a concept to be trying to use here. The fact
> of the matter is, she *could* live, quite comfortably, on concert and
> licensing revenues.
You or I *could* live, perhaps, on 1/7 of our present revenue.
Are you *willing*?
> >Do you expect
> >Steven Spielberg, for instance, to produce films when there is no profit
> >to be expected, and thus little financing available for production?
>
> Depends on how much is to be made on licensing, and how secure the
> investment is.
What's being licensed? Not the film; not the soundtrack; not the
novelization. Those are being distributed user2user. Toys? How many
toys were produced from The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's
List, A.I.?
"How secure is the investment"... is my point exactly, it's insecure as
all hell. Essentially throwing money down a hole, if there is no profit;
can you make a profit on "Schindler's List" without licensing toys? No?
Well I guess it won't be made then. Better produce E.T. VIII instead.
> >What
> >model do you expect and/or want to replace the status quo?
>
> The status quo, sans profiteering.
Can you isolate for me what part of the status quo is profiteering? Is is
answer to people being "overpaid" not paying them at all?
David Z
Houston TX
David
wrote:
> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard David Masterson say:
> >>>>>> Jeffrey Siegal writes:
> >
> >You presume that "theatrical releases" will be made through movie
> >theaters in the future and that the theater would, thus, prevent
> >unlimited copying of the movie.
>
> And you presume it won't.
>
> >In the future, why go to the theater
> >when most people (or their neighbors) will have personal digital
> >playback systems to rival the theater experience?
>
> For the same reasons we still go to theaters, despite the much greater
> convenience of video tapes and DVDs. You are simply mis-identifying
> what constitutes 'the theater experience'.
That's less true today than yesterday. Going to theaters is one of my
favorite pasttimes, but everyone has limits. Theater screeners future
will lie in making "the theater experience" a good deal better than
staying at home. With generally more people having HDTV, high-quality
screens, hi-end audio systems and playback systems in the *preferred*
comfort and security of their own home, that's going to be a challenge.
(Screeners probably have a much better future overseas in markets without
widespread market penetration of these.)
Such improvements might involve better image quality, greater comfort, and
evicting cell phone users, talkers, others who distract from the
experience. The theater experience is great, yeah, except for all the
other people there. If the choice truly comes down to seeing the latest
release in the googleplex with $21 tickets or seeing a six-month-old film
at home for free, I don't see any healthy future for the film industry.
Because sooner or later, those six-month-old films will stop showing up.
> >When that becomes
> >more of the norm, then Steven Spielberg (etc.) will have to depend
> >more on the sale of copies of the release and, thus, IP is important.
>
> No, then the ticket price at theaters just goes up. Or else poor Steven
> lives on toy licensing. Big fat hairy deal.
If you respect Spielberg so little as to deny him compensation, why see
his films? Or pick any director or film you like. Why should you get it
for free?
David Z
Houston TX
David
wrote:
> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard David Masterson say:
> >
> >Regardless of how much wealth they have (and that seems like another
> >"large" and "small" argument), developing "other ways" assumes that
> >someone has an idea for a (well thought out) way. If you have such a
> >way, this is the forum to discuss it...
>
> That's up to those that want to make money to figure out. We need not
> second-guess them.
Do you go to work without getting paid?
David Z
Houston TX
T. Max Devlin
>In <ovhmvt4s5nnu0cbho...@4ax.com> T. Max Devlin posted:
>> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard D. C. Sessions say:
>>>In <slrn9vlnh...@latveria.castledoom.org> Isaac posted:
>> [...]
>>>I think that this discussion has gone *way* OT, and if people are really
>>>interested in the details of digital copyright they should read Lessig and
>>>some of the other serious authors on the subject. (Great book by author
>>>whose name I forget but she's Big News at Stanford Law.)[...]
>>
>> Could it be Jessica Litman? I sure hope so.
>>
>> http://www.msen.com/~litman/no.htm
>> http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/read.htm
>
>Yes! Thank you.
>
>Brilliant writer.
Yes, she is. She has a very coherent understanding of copyright, as
well. The two links above, along with
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html are essential reading for
anyone who wishes to discuss software licensing, IMHO.
David
ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil hunt) wrote:
If copies can be had easily for free, who is paying-per-item?
David Z
Houston TX