Internet Downloads

[Jarulf]

There seems to be some limitations on the number of quotes one can make in a post and if one exceeds that, it doesn't quote at all. SInce I have allready written it all, I will instead break up the post in more than 1 and will keep it in mind for future postings to quote in less blocks. Sorry for any inconvenience..

I DID.  Here, since you're apparently blind, I'll do it AGAIN.

"Actually, it clearly mentions 'just bought a license,' with the main key word being 'just.' It's very helpful to take an entire sentence within its own context rather than nitpicking a word which is sort of semantically null. When you purchase a software license, just what is it you think you're licensing it for? To NOT use?"

What I am trying to say is that there is NO need for a license to use a computer program (or a book, or a music CD or anything else copyright related you can think of). Buying a license to use a computer program is as pointless as buying a license to breath, you are perfectly allowed to do it without the license. The fact that someone tries to sell it to you or claim they have such a license for you, does not automatically turn it not allowed if you don't have it.

You need a license to do something that would otherwise not be allowed. For example, if you want to take a book and make copies and sell to people, you would not be allowed since the copyright law says you are not allowed to do that if you are not the copyright holder. So you need to get a license/permission/contract with the copyright holder to be able to do that. If you want to use the same book (like reading it) or a computer program, you don't need to get such a license/permission/contract since the copyright law does not forbid it, even if you do not hold the copyright.

If you feel the copyright law forbid such use, please feel free to tell WERE.

By the way, although the term is not commonly used for any standard consumer purchases of any copyrighted material other than software, it is universally used in the United States when referring to commercial purchases of copyrighted material.  When a movie theatre purchases a film, they are not purchasing the film to use as they see fit; they are purchasing a license to use the film under certain specific restrictions (including number of screens, times per day, even price of tickets... all sorts of esoteric crap).

No, a purchase is a purchase and in this case there is a purchase of a copy of the film. Of course, one can instead set it up as loan or make it part of some contract otherwise tied to the purchase, but that has NOTHING to do with copyright at all. It is contract/sales law. You can do the same with a table you sell to people.

  Similarly, when you purchase a movie on DVD, you are purchasing a license to use it -- it's just that rather than having all sorts of minutae involved, the restrictions placed on you extend no further than anything which would infringe on the rights granted to the copyright holder within section 106 of US copyright law.

You are listening to much to media propaganda. There is no sell of "licenses" it is a purchase, just like anything else. It is a deal between you and the shop and covered by normal sales laws. As I stated above, there is not even a need for a license so selling one would be utter pointless. Again, normal use does not in any way infringe on any of the rights given to the copyright holder under § 106, so just would you need your "license" for? What in § 106 would you infringe on without your claimed license to use it?

[snip]

But the bottom line... I'll get to this in a minute.

I am tempted to skip ahead just to read it first :)

...which of course means nothing, since the one thing that's absolutely clear is that when you purchase media containing copyright material, the one thing that's absolutely true is that no transfer of ownership in anything but the media materials has taken place.  You don't buy software, you buy the right to use it within specific guidelines.

What makes you think that? Of course there is a change in ownership, there is a change of ownership of a copy of the work (which by the way, in §101 of US copyright law is defined as:

Code:

“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

By the way, for phone records it says pretty much the same thing, it is just split up some. You can't separate the two things as you do. In addition, don't confuse ownership of the work (the copyright) and ownership of individual copies. It is non related and copyright does not give you ownership of a copy just because you have the copyright to it. In a sale, there is a change of ownership of a copy, but not of the copyright. Nothing strange at all. So yes, you buy copies of software too. No idea were you got the idea that you did no (or could not).

And here's where you completely lose it.  Exclusive rights to the copyright holder do NOT mean that anyone anywhere can do whatever they want if it's not listed there.

Of course it is, gee. What else would there be to tell that you are not allowed to do something? Nothing. The reason they give something exclusive to the copyright holder is because if they did not, everyone would be able to do it. Only those things given as exclusive ones are those you can't do without a permission.

It means that the ONLY party who has the RIGHT to do THOSE things is the copyright holder -- and by definition, contained within clause (3), includes the copyright holder's INALIENABLE LEGAL RIGHT to tell you what you may or may not do with their work.

I admit my English is not perfect or even very good, since it is not my native language, but please tell me were or how clause (3) can be interpreted to say that it includes "to use" or "what to do"!! It only tells that the copyright owner is the only one allowed to sell (or otherwise distribute) copies (even the ones they have not made themselves). That is it. It doesn't cover anything else than the act of distributing. Using something is not distributing.

As an added note, the distribution right of copyright work is really not as exclusive as it might seem from only reading this clause though. In most countries this right is consumed in such a way that it only applies to the first initial distribution. (on a per copy basis). After that, the copyright holder can't control the distribution of that copy any more. That is why, after having bought a book or a computer program or whatever, is free to sell it or give it away or do whatever I want. Usually the act of rental is NOT consumed though, so you can't rent it, but other distribution forms are OK. In US copyright law, this is covered through the first sale doctrine I believe which, I think, is more or less as I described here but with some variation. In any case, this is quite off topic for our discussion of use since distribution is not part of use.

I said I'd get back to the bottom line in a minute, and here we are.

Great! :)

See, the problem here is that you seem to be under the impression that you have a right to purchase their work.

No, I don't think I have a "right" to do it. But if they want to sell copies, then yes, I am buying them. If they don't like the concept to people buying, they can of course stop selling, but then it would be sort of pointless for them to create it from the start of course (they can of course also go for a rental option, like you do when you rent a movie. This is sort of impractical for computer software though I would say, since you typically would like to use it for longer than just a few days. I believe there are possibilities to rent console games though.


Continues...