Internet Downloads

[Jarulf]

Quoting and commenting on an entire section of text does not in any way imply that the commenter has understood the section of text in question.  I note that you completely ignored the explanation of why you misread the meaning, which sort of means to me that you're just looking for someone to argue with and are unable to say, "Oh... sorry, misunderstood."

Nice.

So, instead ot telling me that I should not quote all of itt after having told me to not quote a too small part just to end up meaning I don't understood what you wrote, why not instead telling me what you actually meant though and what I missunderstood?

In your post I replied to, you said that copyright had an interesting twist and mentioned two ways to look at it. I wanted to comment on the part you called "Microsoft's view" stating that it is not a particular bad or correct view since the "use" part of their view has nothing to do with copyright. Any such thing is related to sales and transfer of ownership though. To this you reply that your comment didn't even address the right to use, so I quoted again a smaller part just showing that. Now, tell me what I have missunderstood!

In the sense that there's no freakin' point buying software you CAN'T use, that's accurate in a logical and sensible sense -- but it has nothing to do with law.

I assume we talk about the copyright law, since all other discussions has been about it. My question from previous posting stands though, show WERE in copyright laws use is forbidden and given as an exclusive right to the copyright holder. It would be interesting if you found such a new hidden exclusive right of the copyright holder.

Unnecessary.  You don't have the right to do anything with any copyrighted material except those things which are explicitly granted to you by the copyright holder.

I have seen many erroneous statements about copyright, but this one takes the price. Have you ever read any copyright law? Or just a few text or information regarding copyright law at all? It is pointless discussing something with someone that doesn't even know the basics. I have allready posted a link to the US copyright law since I believe you might live there. Let me quote the part of the law though that tells what rights are given as exclusive to the copyright holders. It is found in chapter 1, §106:

Code:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

That is it. Anything not listed above is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder and can be done by ANYONE! Notice particulary how "use" (or any related action) is not listed.

Some comment to the above though. First of, the exclusiveness is not completely exclusive, there are many exceptions were you can actually do some of the above without it being infringement. That is told about in other parts of the copyright law.

The part about derivative work deviates from how it works in many other countries and is more restrictive in favor of the copyright holder in USA.

Certain rights are implied, obviously, but while you're sitting here asking me to tell you where in copyright law you are "required" to be given a license to use material, you're missing one very important point.

The only place in copyright law (US copyright law, anyway) where the consumer's "right" to "use" any copyright material whatsoever is addressed at all is in the "Fair Use" clause... which, of course, doesn't even specifically refer to the rights of someone who's purchased a copy of a copyrighted work anyway!  "Fair Use" covers you even if you haven't purchased the material, and has very specific limitations.

You have missunderstood how the copyright law is structured and worded. As I mentioned above, it works the other way arround from what you think. The paragraph i quoted above is the one that give rights to the copyright holder. All other things you do is free to do by anyone. The fair use is a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. It covers cases when you do one of the actions exclusive to the copyright holder and which would otherwsie have been infringement. For you to apply the "fair use" there first have to be an infringing action and the fair use is a defense to that infringement turning it into a non infringement. For anything you do that is not an infringement, there is no point at all to go to fair use.

There is not one single statement in US copyright law which describes what rights you, as the consumer, have when you purchase copyrighted material; there is not one single statement in US copyright law which restricts how the copyright holder may distribute their work.

Agreed, and the reason is that without the law, any action would be OK by anyone. So the copyright law works the other way arround, gives some rights exclusively to the copyright holder (and thus anything else is OK to everyone else). There is no need to list the basically endless number of things a consumer can do since he can do anything not specifically given as exclusive to the copyright holder.

How you distribute things have nothing to do with copyright (it doens't cover it either in case you want to search), it is typically coverd by for example (consumer) sale laws or contract laws.

Yeah, legally, there is.  The copyright holder controls the work, and controls the means of distribution, and additionally has the right to determine the means of use of their work.

(For example, a software company can sell you a license to use their software, such license being revocable if you use that software to do... well, pretty much anything they don't want you to do with it.  If you were to violate that agreement, the software company would not come and demand that you turn over the installation CDs, ya know.  They'd get a court order forcing you to cease... doing what with the software?  It's a three-letter word...)

Now, on a practical level, as I've already previously acknowledged, if you go buy a piece of software it's implied that you're going to use it.  But the copyright holder most certainly can impose restrictions on your use of that software, and that is why they can most certainly require you to agree to license terms.

I have allready commented this and how it is wrong above, several times actually, just not cutting it away to avoid confuctio and being accused of cutting things out or missquote.