Continuing the quote war, because I forgot something:
You have, on repeated occasions in this thread, taken a blanket statement that something is or is not illegal, and then tried to argue that the commentor was incorrect in some fashion simply because that matter is not covered in copyright law itself. You've been doing it with me for two days, and you did it with Raelynn when he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Owning a copy of something that hasn't been released yet is illegal."
I never said that under copyright law, Microsoft is selling you the right to use their software. I just said Microsoft is selling you the right to use their software, and because you can't find anywhere in copyright law where that's allowable, you started arguing and demanding that I show you where, in copyright law, they have that right.
Raelynn never said that under copyright law, owning a copy of something that hasn't been released yet is illegal; he just said it was illegal. You got all pedantic with him and explained why that's not illegal under copyright law -- then noted for yourself that it IS illegal, because it's being in possession of stolen property.
Law is not compartmentalized. Any action anyone takes at any time may be applicable to several, dozens, hell hundreds of different laws scattered around multiple pieces of code (especially when it's a matter of commerce). The ability to sell you a license to use a copyright work is not just a matter of copyright. It's covered in copyright law, the Clayton anti-trust act, and common contract law. You can't just look at one of them to determine what's acceptable.
Perhaps I was unclear when I said that it was an interesting twist in the way copyright law is constituted, since it really does rest more within the realm of contract law, and the "right to use" something isn't limited to copyright materials; see: leases (license to use a domicile), car rentals (license to use a fleet vehicle), tickets to a football match (license to sit in an uncomfortable seat for three hours), etc. However, it IS a function of the way copyright law is constituted thanks to (1) section 109, its exceptions, and the methods by which software companies avoid even allowing section 109 to be applicable to their transactions and (2) section 106 and its inalienable right for the copyright holder to control the means of distribution for their intellectual property.
I never said that... did I? If I said that, I wasn't clear. A copyright holder has an exclusive right to dictate the acceptable uses of their work, and they have this right because (1) they control the distribution and (2) they can control the means of distribution by refusing to sell representation of the work unless you, the purchaser, agree to certain terms. If they do not make these specific declarations in the form of licensing the material, then you, the consumer, are of course presumed to have full right to use the work as you see fit within the bounds of existing copyright law... but their ability to force you to agree to certain terms as a condition if sale does act as a limitation on your right to use the work.
For a right to be a right, it must be absolute within the scope of the granted right. You can't say "You have the right to use this how you see fit except when we say you don't," because then you really don't have any rights at all; they can be taken away at whim. As such, you don't have the right to use a work how you see fit; the copyright holder has the right to dictate what rights you do have. Yes, 99% of the time, the copyright holder says (by omission) "Yeah, whatever, do what you want." But they CAN impose restrictions on you.
Jarulf,Jun 1 2005, 07:35 AM Wrote:You can switch topic and discuss sales/contract laws and what applies there, but then, please leave out copyright since it has nothing to do with it. I am very fond of that area of laws too. One problem there is of course that (consumer)sales laws and contract laws differs a LOT more between countries than copyright law do. Just make your choice, but don't mix them up! And donât claim one of the laws is dictating what is really dictated by another law!
[right][snapback]79166[/snapback][/right]
You have, on repeated occasions in this thread, taken a blanket statement that something is or is not illegal, and then tried to argue that the commentor was incorrect in some fashion simply because that matter is not covered in copyright law itself. You've been doing it with me for two days, and you did it with Raelynn when he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Owning a copy of something that hasn't been released yet is illegal."
I never said that under copyright law, Microsoft is selling you the right to use their software. I just said Microsoft is selling you the right to use their software, and because you can't find anywhere in copyright law where that's allowable, you started arguing and demanding that I show you where, in copyright law, they have that right.
Raelynn never said that under copyright law, owning a copy of something that hasn't been released yet is illegal; he just said it was illegal. You got all pedantic with him and explained why that's not illegal under copyright law -- then noted for yourself that it IS illegal, because it's being in possession of stolen property.
Law is not compartmentalized. Any action anyone takes at any time may be applicable to several, dozens, hell hundreds of different laws scattered around multiple pieces of code (especially when it's a matter of commerce). The ability to sell you a license to use a copyright work is not just a matter of copyright. It's covered in copyright law, the Clayton anti-trust act, and common contract law. You can't just look at one of them to determine what's acceptable.
Perhaps I was unclear when I said that it was an interesting twist in the way copyright law is constituted, since it really does rest more within the realm of contract law, and the "right to use" something isn't limited to copyright materials; see: leases (license to use a domicile), car rentals (license to use a fleet vehicle), tickets to a football match (license to sit in an uncomfortable seat for three hours), etc. However, it IS a function of the way copyright law is constituted thanks to (1) section 109, its exceptions, and the methods by which software companies avoid even allowing section 109 to be applicable to their transactions and (2) section 106 and its inalienable right for the copyright holder to control the means of distribution for their intellectual property.
Quote:I refuses to accept that it has ANYTHING at all to do with copyright law until you tell me were in the copyright law it says the copyright holder has an exclusive right to USE a work.
I never said that... did I? If I said that, I wasn't clear. A copyright holder has an exclusive right to dictate the acceptable uses of their work, and they have this right because (1) they control the distribution and (2) they can control the means of distribution by refusing to sell representation of the work unless you, the purchaser, agree to certain terms. If they do not make these specific declarations in the form of licensing the material, then you, the consumer, are of course presumed to have full right to use the work as you see fit within the bounds of existing copyright law... but their ability to force you to agree to certain terms as a condition if sale does act as a limitation on your right to use the work.
For a right to be a right, it must be absolute within the scope of the granted right. You can't say "You have the right to use this how you see fit except when we say you don't," because then you really don't have any rights at all; they can be taken away at whim. As such, you don't have the right to use a work how you see fit; the copyright holder has the right to dictate what rights you do have. Yes, 99% of the time, the copyright holder says (by omission) "Yeah, whatever, do what you want." But they CAN impose restrictions on you.
Darian Redwin - just some dude now