backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 40 comment(s) - last by lexluthermiest.. on Mar 20 at 4:16 PM


Congressman Boucher seeks to reign in the DMCA's trampling of Fair Use.  (Source: Congressman Boucher's Photo Gallery)
Hybrid bill could put off PRO-IP's industry supporters

The PRO-IP act, a bill introduced in December 2007 that vastly strengthens intellectual property protections, may see Fair Use provisions added if one Congressman gets his way.

Formally called H.R. 4279, the PRO-IP or “Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property” Act of 2007 reprioritizes Department of Justice resources towards copyright enforcement, and among other things, adds copyright infringement to the criteria for involvement of the DoJ’s computer crimes unit. Written in large part by NBC Universal attorney Rick Cotton, the bill enjoys heavy support from Hollywood content producers – and fierce resistance from Fair Use advocates, who consider the bill overreaching and “gluttonous.”

The PRO-IP act is expansive in its scope, even after its contentious “compilation” section – which allows industry members to seek damages per song, instead of per album – was stripped out earlier this month.

The EFF called the PRO-IP act a “one-way ratchet” proposal that “amplifies copyright without protecting innovators or technology users.”

Now, Congressman Rick Boucher says he has a plan to add his own provisions to the PRO-IP Act, which is working Congress as the H.R. 1201 FAIR USE Act of 2007. H.R. 1201 contains a series of provisions designed to restore a more complete vision of Fair Use to the DMCA, which currently forbids circumventing DRM even in cases of fair use. By legalizing the circumvention of DRM for someone who is “engaging in a non-infringing use,” the FAIR USE Act seeks to legally protect actions like skipping past TV commercials or transmitting files through a home network – both increasingly common activities among today’s media consumers.

The FAIR USE Act certainly has its critics: Hollywood viciously opposes the bill due to fears “that any loophole … would open the door to piracy,” and a few have pointed out that perhaps the bill’s exceptions are not expansive enough.

Combining the two bills could create what Ars Technica calls a “PRO-IP/FAIR USE Act Frankenstein's monster,” and if implemented, could see the PRO-IP act alienated from its Hollywood backers.

Boucher, an ardent Fair Use supporter, initially seemed to have shelved his plans after the PRO-IP recently passed a House committee vote without any additions. However, speaking at a Media Institute luncheon, he told his audience that he is still in discussions to advance “some parts or all of 1201 in conjunction with other IP measures … as part of a package.”

However, even Boucher has doubts: “It would be, I think, probably the most difficult bill we could consider this year because of all the controversy and opposition it would attract,” he said. “I'm not even sure what I think of the idea yet. At this point, we're having discussions about a package but I haven't signed off on anything yet.”

“I am trying to preserve fair use,” said Boucher. “With the passage of the DMCA, the possibility of the complete abolition of fair use now exists. It gives companies that power to lock up their content forever and prevent anyone from accessing it in any way that they don't approve. And one thing I've learned in the quarter century I've spent [in Congress] is that power once granted will be used. I have no doubt that within a few years we'll see companies taking steps to effectively cut off all fair use, unless we change the law.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Go Rick!
By MrDiSante on 3/18/2008 8:30:13 PM , Rating: 3
At least there's one man in congress protecting American rights!




RE: Go Rick!
By joex444 on 3/18/2008 8:33:16 PM , Rating: 5
"I have no doubt that within a few years we'll see companies taking steps to effectively cut off all fair use"

Odd, I came to that conclusion a few years ago.


RE: Go Rick!
By BladeVenom on 3/18/2008 10:26:58 PM , Rating: 5
The RIAA must have forgot to bribe him.


RE: Go Rick!
By RyanM on 3/20/2008 12:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
QUICKLY! Get that man a money hat!


Even the Government does it
By TheMan876 on 3/19/2008 12:49:33 AM , Rating: 1
I used to work at a public library. As far as I can tell, the library doesn't use any special means or obtain any special licences to distribute the books, movies, music CD's and games that they do. By allowing multiple people to use these games, aren't they breaking the law in the same way I would be if I let my friends borrow it or have a copy?

If I download an audiobook through the library and then rip the DRM so that I can listen to it on my iPod (my only worthwhile way to listen to an audiobook) have I commited a crime worthy of jailtime?




RE: Even the Government does it
By kyleb2112 on 3/19/2008 2:03:51 AM , Rating: 2
Borrowing or selling the original doesn't get you into trouble. It's the whole "copying" thing. Thus the term "copyright".

Imagine if we could clone cars as easily as mp3s. Toyota would care less if you resold your Corolla, but if you spawned 3000 of them for your buddies, well that's bound to create some friction.


RE: Even the Government does it
By stonemetal on 3/19/2008 12:21:09 PM , Rating: 3
they do. The library only buys books from certain sources and pays more than you would at the book store. Secondly lending isn't making a copy therefore it doesn't have to pass copyright. If you borrow it from the library then rip it to your ipod and keep it then you have committed copyright infringement. I believe you are covered during the duration of the loan, though IANAL.


RE: Even the Government does it
By TheMan876 on 3/20/2008 2:32:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly lending isn't making a copy therefore it doesn't have to pass copyright. If you borrow it from the library then rip it to your ipod and keep it then you have committed copyright infringement.


So what if I borrow a game from the library and install it on my computer, a process that copies the entire game to the hard drive in most cases, has anything illegal occured? What if I buy 1 copy of a game and "lend" it to all my friends, who all install the game on their computers?


By seraphim1982 on 3/19/2008 10:37:04 AM , Rating: 5
This is such a "iffy" kind of topic.
There are numerous points to support both sides of the argument.

I just wanna say...if I buy something, ie. a MOVIE, I am buying the movie, NOT the 10 mins of bull$hit I have to wait before I even get to my root menu. If I wanted to watch commercials or advertisements, I might as well turn on the turn on the TV and look for commercials. By not allowing you to bypass these advertisement, is NOT allowing the end user control of the product.




Cars/Property is different from IP
By azherdev on 3/19/2008 4:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
I see many people compare property and software, but I do not believe you can make 1 to 1 comparison.

If I purchase a car, I can't duplicate it and keep it in two different locations for convenience. I only poses one physical car and sure can do whatever I want to it. When I purchase a copy of Windows or new Top 20 album, I purchased a license to a piece of software and some music to enjoy. But unlike a car, I can also duplicate it in a usable form (install on second pc) or copy to my iPod and home media server.

Some people say that coping a CD to a tape/ipod to listen in a car is ok (I do agree), but that equates to creating a copy of a car and keeping it in a different city at the airport for convenience when you fly in. Sure, you only use one car at a time, but would it be ok to duplicate your car (assuming replication at $1 per copy)?

The only property you own when you buy software or music or dvd is the physical media it came on, not the IP. Microsoft or Sony doesn't care what you do with the physical media (break it, scratch it, write on it, color it), they don't want you creating IP copies. Microsoft cares less about physical copies now because they created a way to limit the usability of their software until they said it's ok (I hate activation).

And in terms of backup copy... can you create a backup copy of your car in case you children destroy the seats or scratch the paint? Or what about that plasma TV you paid $3K for, copy that in case it breaks? Today it is not possible, but would you argue it should be allowed if and when replication allows us to do it? We pay extra insurance to cover the costs of damage to our cars, homes, and other material possesions. So why not create an insurance or physical media that your software and music came on in case it get's scratched or destroyed in a fire? Wouldn't that be a 1 to 1 coparison then?

Once we can replicate physical objects the same way we do for media, you will see how all this will apply to TVs, Cars, etc. Replicating a TV for convenience to put in two rooms will be illegal, even if you use one at a time for personal use.

Personally, I hate all drm stuff and think music and movie industry needs to worry more about good content then making it more difficult and frustrating for customers to enjoy entertainment.




By arkcom on 3/20/2008 1:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
If I could make a copy of my car for $1, I would do it, and would not feel at all bad. You know why? If I can do it for $1 then BMW could do it for 10 cents, just like with software.


Hilarious picture!
By jtemplin on 3/19/2008 12:24:38 AM , Rating: 3
Congressman Boucher bears a striking resemblance to that furry monster. They both need immediate dental care.




Whatever Happened...
By cidman2001 on 3/19/2008 10:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever happened to the good old days where you could use IP in any way you wanted as long as you are not making a profit from it? Isn't it kinda stupid to make it so complicated, with so many grey areas? Why can a library lend popular CDs to thousands of people (who no doubt make copies)and not be in violation of such dumb legal arguments like the "making available" argument used by the MPAA and RIAA? There are simply too many ambiguities in the statutes and their enforcement.




Now isn't that interesting
By eye smite on 3/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Now isn't that interesting
By lexluthermiester on 3/18/2008 9:12:37 PM , Rating: 5
Violating the DMCA in many ways takes the form asserting ones statutory rights to ownership. Simply put, an individuals rights to ownership supersede and override copy/patent right. For instance, If one does to a store and buys a movie on DVD, that person has the right to do with that movie as they see fit, within the realms of personal use. So if that person wishes to make a copy of the movie for use the the children for the purpose of keeping the original in good condition. If the children[or anyone else] happens to scratch that disc, another may be made from the original. Of course this option is only available to those who know how to do it. The uninformed don't have this option, even though it is their right under fair use and property ownership laws. The same applies to software. I for example use my copy of XP on three machines. And even though Microsoft would have us all believe that I'm breaking the law, which is totally false. I own that copy of XP, and I have the RIGHT to use that copy as I see fit, again within the realm of my own personal use. Microsoft may own the copyright[which is nothing more than distribution and profit rights], but I own this copy of Windows. I may be in violation of the EULA, but I could care less. I paid for this software and I shall use it as I please.

The DMCA contradicts the constitution in not less than 38 different ways. I myself refuse to acknowledge the legality of DMCA and will only obey the portions of it that do not stand in contradiction of my statutory rights.

Now watch, I'll be rated down for expressing this point of view, and encouraging the protection personal freedoms and rights.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By lexluthermiester on 3/18/2008 9:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
Please forgive my grammar. I didn't proof read that statement before clicking the "post comment" button.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By eye smite on 3/19/2008 7:17:48 PM , Rating: 1
I made an observation and a bit of a joke, and you gave this dissertation on the quantum flux of mp3 dynamic dispersion of theft and the ideal way things are supposed to be. So I'm curios, does the corn cob up your butt tickle your tonsils yet?


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By lexluthermiester on 3/20/2008 3:49:43 AM , Rating: 1
How colorful. Not particularly witty, but colorful. What a person of quality you must be...


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By eye smite on 3/20/2008 2:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
Like I'm remotely concerned on any possible opinions your limited intellect can come up with on me........that's just laughable. When the Clue Train comes by, be sure and hop on it.


By lexluthermiester on 3/20/2008 4:16:15 PM , Rating: 1
...need I say more?


By lobadobadingdong on 3/18/2008 10:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
Since I can't rate you up higher....cheers.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By CollegeTechGuy on 3/18/2008 10:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to rate you down, because I believe this is the way it SHOULD be, however it is not the way it really is. For years now people have had the right to make copies of music, from tapes to CDs to MP3s. If you purchased the media on any format you have the right to to whatever it is you want with it, like make a mix CD or something. On the other hand, you do not have this right with DVDs. Basically the movie industry has more money than the music industry and they fought this battle and won. They get around this with the encryption, because a consumer does not have the right to break or crack the encryption. So you can't make a "back-up" copy if it means breaking the encryption.

Who knows what will happen with the laws...


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By mcnabney on 3/18/2008 10:57:08 PM , Rating: 3
This message is encrypted in ASCII and transmitted in multiple packets using TCP-IP which has been stored across a striped array of hard disks and finally re-transmitted and encrypted by means of WPA protection across a WiFi network. Did anyone just violate DMCA by reading it?


By lexluthermiester on 3/18/2008 11:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
Technically, under the DMCA, anyone who views anything on the internet would in fact be in violation, but that is only technically speaking. In reality, such a notion would be unenforcible. But this point does serve to illustrate how flawed the DMCA really is. I challenge you all to download a copy of the DMCA[a crime in and of itself, technically speaking], and read it trough. It a long read, but if you don't come away from it totally enraged by the ideals and mentalities it supports, I would be completely dumbfounded....


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By Jellodyne on 3/19/2008 9:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
Nowhere was the encryption circumvented. Just as when you play a DVD your hardware decrypts it. It doesn't BREAK it, it has the key. Encrypting and subsequent authorized decryption is not circumvention. On the other hand if someone broke your key and was snooping on your encyrpted wifi network and read this post as you made it, then yes they broke the law, but not the DCMA.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By lexluthermiester on 3/18/2008 10:57:22 PM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately, that is an incorrect interpretation of fair use and property laws. The encryption used in DVD's[or any other media for that matter] functions by undermining basic ownership statutes. They may have made it unlawful to circumvent this encryption, but the encryption itself is unlawful because it circumvents individual ownership rights. "Hacking", "Cracking", or in otherwise, nullifying said encryption is perfectly legal when done under the purview of personal or household usage, and for the same reasons it is legal to make personal copies of music and the such. The industry at large seems to think they can dictate how we may use our own property, the whole time telling us it's not our property.

If I pay for something, it belongs to me. I own it. Anything you pay for belongs to you. You own it. Therefore as proper and legal owners such properties, we have the right to use our properties as WE define, again, within the realm of our own personal use. Government overview not withstanding, industry shall not limit personal property usages. If the government does not stand up for the rights that it needs to protect, then perhaps it is time that government is replaced by one that will protect those rights....


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By bhieb on 3/19/2008 9:40:01 AM , Rating: 1
The way I understand it, that is not technically right either. There was a case that a Judge ruled that you could not bypass encryption to make a copy, however it is not a law it just provides precedence for other cases. I beleive that if this actually was faught to the Supreme Court it may have been overruled. Just my opinion I know, but a court decision does not make something legal or illegal, it just sets precedence (which is almost the same these days).


By lexluthermiester on 3/19/2008 3:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, a Judge has ruled that encryption circumvention IS legal for personal property. The kid that first broke the encryption scheme for DVD was prosecuted for it. He won the case for many reasons. There were a few cases that were brought to court here in the US and the result was the same. Which set a very good precedent.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By angelkiller on 3/18/2008 10:45:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I for example use my copy of XP on three machines. And even though Microsoft would have us all believe that I'm breaking the law, which is totally false. I own that copy of XP, and I have the RIGHT to use that copy as I see fit, again within the realm of my own personal use.

Now, I'm all for "I paid for it, so I do whatever I want" idea, but in Micro$oft's case, its a little different. When you buy XP, you buy a license which gives you the right to use XP on one computer . The license is the key here as it is what is restricting you. You agreed to the license and therefore you are subject to M$'s rules.

Now I definately disagree with this though.Indeed, I did pay $100 for this so its mine I very well should be able to do whatever I want for personal use . My question is where does one draw that line? "I paid for it so I can give a copy to a friend" "Well, its mine" How do you address that mindset? How can something we buy have restrictions on it and why don't we have this problem with other stuff we buy??


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By angelkiller on 3/18/2008 10:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I own that copy of XP, and I have the RIGHT to use that copy

I forgot to mention that this is your key problem. You do in fact own that copy of XP. That single copy . You own one instance of XP.

Again, I don't agree with that rational, but it should at least be explained.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By lexluthermiester on 3/18/2008 11:36:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Now, I'm all for "I paid for it, so I do whatever I want" idea, but in Micro$oft's case, its a little different. When you buy XP, you buy a license which gives you the right to use XP on one computer . The license is the key here as it is what is restricting you. You agreed to the license and therefore you are subject to M$'s rules.


This is a perfect example of "The copyright owner said so, so you must obey" mentality. This is a completely flawed point of view, no offense to you personally, angelkiller. Again I purchased the software and I own it. The "End User License Agreement" adopted by many software vender's is valid in part or in whole ONLY if it does not violate statutory ownership and usage laws, which in most cases, it does. If a part of said EULA does violate rights of the purchaser, that individual may legally disregard such addendum's and continue using the software they purchased, without fear of penalty from the copyright owner. So having purchased this software, and having a "Certificate Of Authenticity" as proof of such ownership, I have the legal right to use this software is I see fit, but only for my personal usage...

quote:
Now I definately disagree with this though.Indeed, I did pay $100 for this so its mine I very well should be able to do whatever I want for personal use . My question is where does one draw that line? "I paid for it so I can give a copy to a friend" "Well, its mine" How do you address that mindset? How can something we buy have restrictions on it and why don't we have this problem with other stuff we buy??


The simple answer to that statement is no. I, nor you, have the right to give a copy of said software to anyone who has not purchased one for themselves. That is copyright infringement and is illegal because that action has stepped outside the boundaries of personal use. We are not legally authorized or allowed to distribute usable copies Windows. That is why there are CD keys. Activation schemes are a violation of certain legal statues, but that is another debate... Microsoft has the right to say we may not redistribute the copies of Windows we own in usable form, but they DO NOT have the right to dictate how we use said software. Now I wish to make one thing clear, these usage rights apply only to individual citizens. They do not apply to business', Corporations, Governments and so on. Microsoft in those situations have more purview to dictate terms of usage because these groups are not individuals, they are "entities" and therefore subject to different laws...

quote:
why don't we have this problem with other stuff we buy??


The reason this isn't as great a problem with say an iPod or a TV is because it is very difficult to "copy" or counterfeit such an object. It is much easier to copy a CD, movie or software. And as much as the industry may discourage and dislike it, for personal use making copies is legal. I was recently in New York City, and on the subway I saw no less than four different Asian people peddling pirate DVD's, CD's and video games. THAT is the kind of thing the needs to be prosecuted, not honest folks making legal copies for use in their own homes.



RE: Now isn't that interesting
By kyleb2112 on 3/19/2008 2:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm...but can't any two parties form a binding contract where one party agrees to sign away their rights? And wouldn't a judge look at that contract and enforce it? I thought this was what EULAs were all about--kind of fencing you in to certain behaviors based on very expedited (check "I Agree") contractual process. Am I off base on this?


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By derwin on 3/19/2008 4:04:17 AM , Rating: 2
Thats a very good point.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By boogle on 3/19/2008 6:33:23 AM , Rating: 3
You can't sign away certain rights, such as statuatory ones. For example, I could write a legal document that says 'if you enter this house you may be murdered and no one may prosecute since you give up your right to live'.

I highly doubt a judge would throw the case out of court if in fact, you were murdered.

Extreme example, I know, but it's on the same lines - you can't override certain laws with a piece of paper.

Having said that this is all relating to personal use , if you share a movie over your home network for people other than yourself to access - you're in violation of the law.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By Yawgm0th on 3/19/2008 3:53:24 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
This is a perfect example of "The copyright owner said so, so you must obey" mentality. This is a completely flawed point of view, no offense to you personally, angelkiller. Again I purchased the software and I own it. The "End User License Agreement" adopted by many software vender's is valid in part or in whole ONLY if it does not violate statutory ownership and usage laws, which in most cases, it does. If a part of said EULA does violate rights of the purchaser, that individual may legally disregard such addendum's and continue using the software they purchased, without fear of penalty from the copyright owner. So having purchased this software, and having a "Certificate Of Authenticity" as proof of such ownership, I have the legal right to use this software is I see fit, but only for my personal usage...


Is that so? Do You have a citation from any legal cases or statutes indicating this? Please cite the statutes regarding "ownership and usage" that a software license restricts.

Regardless of the alleged "ownership" laws, you only own the distribution medium (the disc, in this case) and the license key (in this case the COA being included). You do not own the software, nor do you have the right to use it as you see fit.

I know it would be nice if that were not the case -- in fact I think the law regarding IPs in general, but software specifically, ought to be changed to invalidate many such arbitrary restrictions -- but decades and decades of software licensing schemes and numerous successful lawsuits and indictments over violating said licenses seem to indicate that indeed, you are very bound to the terms of a EULA in almost all cases.

Many, many business and individuals have been prosecuted for failing to abide by a EULA and using ignoring a per-machine licensing scheme. All it takes it someone to report you.

Purchasing that copy of XP does not license you to do with it as you please. You are licensed to install it on one computer and (if it's a retail copy) to move it to a different computer. You may only have it one computer.

Deciding that the copyright owner said so, so you must obey" is a "flawed point of view" does not invalidate the licensing of a given piece of software. For decades, software licensing has involved restrictions on how you can use it. That's what it's called "licensing;" you're only allowed to use it to a certain extent. Although it's true that businesses do not have the same level of ownership rights as an individual, this still applies to individuals. It is not enforced as heavily on individuals because it is almost unenforceable on the one hand, and hardly with the time to enforce it for a given company.

You are legally entitled to copy the disc. In fact, contrary to popular belief, Microsoft condones this and provides you with the utilities to do it. Aside from the plethora of third-party programs available, Microsoft makes available tools to modify and make your own Windows installation discs and disc images. In fact it's a crucial part of several MS certification exams (70-270, for example, is almost impossible to pass if you aren't familiar with RIPREP and SYSPREP).

But that is provided you have a license for each copy you use. You are not entitled to use a given license infinitely by any laws in the United States, and there is no evidence or legal precedence in any form to indicate otherwise. The state of the industry might be a lot better for consumers if there were, and there is certainly some argument for this to happen, but it is not the case now.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By HavenBartton on 3/19/2008 4:30:10 AM , Rating: 3
Let me say first that I appreciate you (Yawgm0th) and LexLuthorMeister giving such detailed, straightforward, and well-formatted posts. It's guys like you that make comments more educational than the actual news topic!

I think at this point though, we need some citations on both sides. Without any legal backing both arguments make sense, but neither are clearly "correct" legally to an average reader like myself.

My understanding is that this comes down to not the enforceability of EULAs, but the extent of which they can legally impose themselves upon our rights, even if we are to willingly accept them.


By lexluthermiester on 3/19/2008 3:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is that so? Do You have a citation from any legal cases or statutes indicating this? Please cite the statutes regarding "ownership and usage" that a software license restricts.


If there were room enough and I had time enough I would cite many, many laws, but I will in fact point you to the primary law by which all of the aforementioned many laws are based. The United States Constitution. I have studied this issue and many of the laws pertaining to it. I am correct in this matter.

quote:
Regardless of the alleged "ownership" laws, you only own the distribution medium (the disc, in this case) and the license key (in this case the COA being included). You do not own the software, nor do you have the right to use it as you see fit.


This is incorrect. Lets say I go out and purchase two cars. Who owns those cars? May I modify them as I see fit? And lets say I don't like any of the colors the manufacturer has to offer, and I purchase paint in a color I like. Am I limited in how I may use that paint? I don't own the copyright for the formula of the paint, nor do I own the patent for the process to make the paint. But I own the paint itself and may use it on any car I personally own. Do I have to have a second drivers license to operate both of those cars? No. I may do with those cars and paint that I put on them as I wish and use them as I wish. This applies no differently to my computers or my copy of XP. I own them and it IS my RIGHT use them as I see fit, again within the purview of my personal usage. You, Microsoft, and any other software vendor, may argue this point till the cows come home, but the reality is property ownership rights govern this kind of situation an there is nothing any of them can do about it.

quote:
Many, many business and individuals have been prosecuted for failing to abide by a EULA and using ignoring a per-machine licensing scheme. All it takes it someone to report you.


Business' being taken to task over unauthorized usages is one thing. But don't believe for second that individuals have ever been prosecuted over something like this unless blatant piracy was going on.

quote:
You are legally entitled to copy the disc. In fact, contrary to popular belief, Microsoft condones this and provides you with the utilities to do it. Aside from the plethora of third-party programs available, Microsoft makes available tools to modify and make your own Windows installation discs and disc images. In fact it's a crucial part of several MS certification exams (70-270, for example, is almost impossible to pass if you aren't familiar with RIPREP and SYSPREP).


If you'd care to reread my previous post, I did in fact say "in usable form". I could copy XP disc's all day long and hand them out free on the street, and as long as I'm not including a CD key with them Microsoft would have no gripe[though I'm sure they wouldn't like it] because I'm not giving out a USABLE copy. Now if I were to do the same but use some of Microsoft's well known OEM preactivation tools and give those disc's out, I would break about 13 different laws[that I know of, I'm sure there are more].

Now, I'm done arguing this point. The facts that I have stated here and in previous posts are just that, Facts. They are law. Microsoft can argue these points, but at the end of the day, I own this copy of XP and the PC's it is installed on. My rights, statutory in nature, are irrevocable. Whether they like or not they CAN NOT and will not dictate how I use it in my home. End of story. Microsoft owns the copyright and the rights to distribution, no doubt there, but once sold I own THIS copy of the software itself.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By tmouse on 3/19/2008 8:14:05 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with some of your points and I think the DCMA was a bad piece of legislation which started with a good purpose. I disagree with your example of the multiple installation of software however. You keep referring to "ownership" and completely ignore the concept of "license". These two terms are clearly defined legally. Simply put ownership is legal title coupled with exclusive legal right to possession; in this case you DO own the physical media you purchased. This should allow you to copy, it wear, it eat, do anything you want to do with it. However a License is a transfer of specified rights in an item and grants NO exclusive legal right to possession. The software on the disk is licensed; the company has all rights other than any rights the offer to you within the scope of the license. You are NEVER given any ownership of the software. Your rights may, at any time be rescinded by the company which retains ownership within the legal definitions of the contract. There is an enormous volume of case law defining these terms and upholding the license grantors ownership rights over the licensee. There is some grey areas such as the transference of your ownership rights of the media without the ability to transfer the license of "use" to the new owner, but even there it usually comes down to whether the seller clearly informed the buyer the license was not transferable and not to whether it was legal for the company to offer nontransferable license rights.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By tmouse on 3/19/2008 9:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
As an aside I really like Congressman Boucher ideas and suggest to everyone to contact their representatives to either vote against H.R. 1201 or include more fair use provisions. Let them know you feel STRONGLY about this and WILL see how they vote and REMEMBER it when it comes to re-election. If we do not do something we will continue to lose to the special interests.


RE: Now isn't that interesting
By tmouse on 3/19/2008 9:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
Oops.. Too many windows open and pasted the wrong thing. I obviously meant vote against H.R. 4279 or FOR H.R. 1201. Dam multi-tasking mistakes.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki