Copyright

[potatohead]

...The little "click here to agree" EULA deals, that occur AFTER THE SALE, really aren't as enforceable...

They're far from unenforceable; at best you could describe them as grey.

 

EULAs have been enforced in previous court cases. The wikipedia entry on software license agreements cites some of the cases.

 

Completely agreed. Grey is exactly the right word. IMHO, they do provide some protection for major vendors doing a lot of retail sales, in that auctions and such can be pulled. However, there are also a fair number of cases where the terms were not enforceable, and a lot of that depends on which circuit court you are subject to.

 

Bottom line on this, from the software vendor point of view, is either:

 

use Internet authentication, so that the purchase is not portable (lousy, but generally effective)

 

,or

 

actually execute a contract, and have no worries at all.

 

Anything else is potentially a mess, depending on the level of control desired. Most common software doesn't require too much control, meaning the current EULA, after sale garbage, largely works. I will say however, establishing that as a meaningful contract will lead down some bad roads. If real contract terms are required, then a real contract is required, and the rest of this is just garbage.

 

From the users point of view, asking a lot of questions about how the software is authorized to run can pay off, if one wants to exercise their right of first sale rights in the future, and that's the point I wanted to make anyway.

 

Also notable is the very high use value for open source projects. As licensing, contract and other onerous things continue to escalate, a Linux user, running open tools experiences far less hassle over time. This is nothing but a good thing, IMHO.

 

It's worth mapping some skills over to GIMP, Open Office, Scribus, Inkscape, etc... Once done, you can run pretty much whatever OS floats your boat, and have few to no worries about these things, and can share these things and your data created as it makes sense. I find the time taken to deal with onerous licensing and contracts, is often well balanced by just spending that learning time needed to get off some software that suddenly requires more time, attention and dollars to operate than it did before. Recommended, all things considered.

[atariksi]

And it's also "cheating" in one sense that you obtain original disks off of Ebay or someone else who already used them and thus violating the single user rule, but only moral/ethical people would stop themselves from doing this. Then following the logic of noncompliance of ethics/morality: "If you cheat, you mine as well lie."

That's just crazy. What's immoral in buying used software? Does buying used games makes people liars somehow?

 

I didn't have time before to reply to this post but I guess you missed the point so it didn't matter.

 

Don't generalize to buying used software since some may allow more than one user or other clauses. And I didn't say buying used games makes people liars. I said if you did copy someone else's copy onto an original of yours, it's cheating and then you can apply lie to get away with it since no way to prove you violated any copyright laws. Here are examples of software where selling of it is not allowed nor duplicating (since these may be copy protected):

 

Lemmings, Shadow of the Beast II, and others from Psygnosis (for Amiga): "Any other use or continuation of use including copying, duplicating, selling, hiring, renting, lending, or otherwise distributing transmitting or transferring this product in contravention of these conditions is in breach of Psygnosis Limited's rights unless specifically authorized in writing by Psygnosis Limited."

 

There's some which you could interpret to allow selling the original:

 

Top Gunner (for Atari 8-bit): "No one may give or sell copies of this manual or accompanying disks or of listings of the programs on disks to any person or institution, except as provided for by the written agreement with MICROPROSE SOFTWARE, INC"

 

Similar for Turrican for Amiga.

[potatohead]

"Any other use or continuation of use including copying, duplicating, selling, hiring, renting, lending, or otherwise distributing transmitting or transferring this product in contravention of these conditions is in breach of Psygnosis Limited's rights unless specifically authorized in writing by Psygnosis Limited"

 

In the US, they don't get to do that. Of course, they get to say it! Never hurts. Probably some people bought into that, and so there you go.

 

If somebody bought one of those games, they get to sell it to their buddy, provided they actually do sell the original they paid for. They can sell it, give it away, archive it, eat it, sit on it, etc... It is theirs. You will find that kind of crap on a lot of stuff, sitting right in the second hand, used store, where it belongs

 

This is the number one reason why Internet authentication, increasingly coupled with digital downloads, are used for distribution. In that scenario, the right still exists, but ends up difficult to use, and another one of those "grey" areas. Probably, we will see that just become the norm, sharply reducing used software sales, games, etc...

Edited March 31, 2010 by potatohead

[TMR]

"Any other use or continuation of use including copying, duplicating, selling, hiring, renting, lending, or otherwise distributing transmitting or transferring this product in contravention of these conditions is in breach of Psygnosis Limited's rights unless specifically authorized in writing by Psygnosis Limited"

 

In the US, they don't get to do that. Of course, they get to say it! Never hurts. Probably some people bought into that, and so there you go.

 

Generally speaking, i believe UK law works in the same way so yes, it's garbage but scares a few folks into being good bunnies. Most games for 8- and 16-bit machines at least carried some note about "unauthorised copying, lending, hiring, public broadcasting, transmission or distribution" (a few slipped a quick "reselling" or similar in there for good measure) which are just as vague and if memory serves users could legally make a personal back-up.

[high voltage]

Mostly you'll find C64 game copies on ebay, like this one (and always disk boxes full of them):

eBay Auction -- Item Number: 150426894651

[Kr0tki]

Don't generalize to buying used software since some may allow more than one user or other clauses. And I didn't say buying used games makes people liars. I said if you did copy someone else's copy onto an original of yours, it's cheating (...)

You specifically said that obtaining a used copy and "violating a single-user rule" is "also cheating in one sense". That slightly contradicts what you are saying now.

 

Lemmings, Shadow of the Beast II, and others from Psygnosis (for Amiga): "Any other use or continuation of use including copying, duplicating, selling, hiring, renting, lending, or otherwise distributing transmitting or transferring this product in contravention of these conditions is in breach of Psygnosis Limited's rights unless specifically authorized in writing by Psygnosis Limited."

_in contravention of these conditions_ - it seems that in this specific case, the sentence provided refers so some conditions stated earlier. So I cannot argue what the snippet means, since it's out of context. Nevertheless, I've also seen licences hat say re-selling is not allowed.

 

I didn't have time before to reply to this post but I guess you missed the point so it didn't matter.

I guess everyone missed my point then: I wasn't asking what's allowed under some wild licences; I was asking what has usage of previously-owned software to do with morality. What is unethical in transferring your right to use a software to another person?

[atariksi]

Don't generalize to buying used software since some may allow more than one user or other clauses. And I didn't say buying used games makes people liars. I said if you did copy someone else's copy onto an original of yours, it's cheating (...)

You specifically said that obtaining a used copy and "violating a single-user rule" is "also cheating in one sense". That slightly contradicts what you are saying now.

...

You should re-read the original paragraph. Yeah, single-user rule not in general for any software. And nothing about lieing but cheating.

 

Lemmings, Shadow of the Beast II, and others from Psygnosis (for Amiga): "Any other use or continuation of use including copying, duplicating, selling, hiring, renting, lending, or otherwise distributing transmitting or transferring this product in contravention of these conditions is in breach of Psygnosis Limited's rights unless specifically authorized in writing by Psygnosis Limited."

_in contravention of these conditions_ - it seems that in this specific case, the sentence provided refers so some conditions stated earlier. So I cannot argue what the snippet means, since it's out of context. Nevertheless, I've also seen licences hat say re-selling is not allowed.

...

It's not out of context; the rest of it is too much typing for me but you can read it on your own and doesn't affect the fact that you can't sell it (or resell it).

 

I didn't have time before to reply to this post but I guess you missed the point so it didn't matter.

I guess everyone missed my point then: I wasn't asking what's allowed under some wild licences; I was asking what has usage of previously-owned software to do with morality. What is unethical in transferring your right to use a software to another person?

 

Yep, it's more to do with morality and ethics since copyright violation cannot be proven unless you admit you copied from original disk or aren't the original owner (bought it from someone who couldn't sell it to you).

[atariksi]

"Any other use or continuation of use including copying, duplicating, selling, hiring, renting, lending, or otherwise distributing transmitting or transferring this product in contravention of these conditions is in breach of Psygnosis Limited's rights unless specifically authorized in writing by Psygnosis Limited"

 

In the US, they don't get to do that. Of course, they get to say it! Never hurts. Probably some people bought into that, and so there you go.

 

Generally speaking, i believe UK law works in the same way so yes, it's garbage but scares a few folks into being good bunnies. Most games for 8- and 16-bit machines at least carried some note about "unauthorised copying, lending, hiring, public broadcasting, transmission or distribution" (a few slipped a quick "reselling" or similar in there for good measure) which are just as vague and if memory serves users could legally make a personal back-up.

 

Granted they may not do anything, but that's what's written. So it would speculation and taking a risk to think they cannot do anything. So suppose I buy an original game for $39.99 and resell it for $89.99, you think that's allowed. And I don't think personal back-ups with softwares that are copy-protected is okay either in all cases.

[atariksi]

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

 

Atari 800 games would still be eligible for copyright and therefore are still protected under United States copyright law. They won't be public domain for quite a few years now, if they ever will be. They are copyrighted for a term of the author's life plus 70 years, but since a corporate entity holds the copyright, as long as that entity exists in some cases it is considered valid. For more info take a look at that PDF if you want, though it's not really that important to the layman.

 

We all have copies of these games, and likely they will be copied ad infinitum, but technically it is copyright infringement.

 

Well, I wouldn't speak for everyone. I have most of the games on original disks or carts or cassettes. Granted some of the disks have gone bad. But I'm sure it's okay to back them up onto a PC in image disk format or file format.

 

Now, the copyright question gets a bit more complex if someone has a nonworking original disk and copies someone else's backup from internet or PC on top of the original disk or keeps it on his PC and considers it a backup of his disk. And it's also "cheating" in one sense that you obtain original disks off of Ebay or someone else who already used them and thus violating the single user rule, but only moral/ethical people would stop themselves from doing this. Then following the logic of noncompliance of ethics/morality: "If you cheat, you mine as well lie.", he can just tell someone that it's a backup of his original disk/cassette/cart or that he's the only owner of those original disks/cassettes/carts.

 

Here's what I said. It's *CHEATING* to copy someone else's copy onto your original disk or obtain original disks off of Ebay or someone else who already used them and thus violate the single user rule. That's not a while license but the general license given for software. The wild licenses (special cases) are those that allow more than one user. In my statement, you already used (enjoyed) the software and then resell it to another user.

 

Now the lieing part comes in when you are asked by copyright officials then you apply the logic of noncompliance of ethics/morality: "If you cheat, you mine as well lie." So the lieing part is not necessary and thus, I am not declaring you a liar.

[Lazarus]

Here's what I said. It's *CHEATING* to copy someone else's copy onto your original disk or obtain original disks off of Ebay or someone else who already used them and thus violate the single user rule. That's not a while license but the general license given for software.

In most countries it is allowed to sell software, no matter what the license says.

[RevEng]

Granted they may not do anything, but that's what's written. So it would speculation and taking a risk to think they cannot do anything. So suppose I buy an original game for $39.99 and resell it for $89.99, you think that's allowed. And I don't think personal back-ups with softwares that are copy-protected is okay either in all cases.

They're not legally entitled to enforce what they've written. It was inside the box and not a term of purchase. This isn't speculation, it's the law in the US, and it has been tested in court.

 

They could also write "you must hand over $200 to us on the first friday of every month" on the disk label, but they couldn't enforce that either, since you didn't have a chance to disagree with those terms prior to purchasing the game.

 

And you're definitely within your legal rights to buy and sell a game at a higher price.

 

Personal backups with softwares that are copy-protected run afoul of the DMCA. They would not be legal in the US and other countries that have adopted DMCA style laws. (with the exception of software for obsolete systems)

Edited March 31, 2010 by RevEng

[akator]

In general, I think it's a shame that so many people are so against copyright law. I'm not saying everyone here, just a lot of what I've read on the internet from people who think copyright law is pointless/antiquated/dead. I guess they all think the professional artists, writers, and programmers will just make stuff for free.

 

Copyright law allows for creators of original content to make money from their work. Millions of people who create books, TV, movies, comics, games, etc., all get to make a living and feed their families. If there was no reliable way to make a living being creative, professional-grade artists, photographers, writers, filmmakers, and programmers wouldn't create as much and culture would suffer.

 

What I haven't heard from anyone is a proposal for a decent system that would pay creators for their past works and support them while continue making new ones. Copyright law is currently the most effective system available. In the US, no one is going to put up with new taxes that in turn get redistributed to artists -- systems like that haven't ever succeeded here even when there was public support, which now there is not.

 

Even in the oft-cited evil Disney/Mickey Mouse copyright extensions, why not? Why shouldn't that company continue making money off intellectual property? I think that's completely reasonable, the same way that another company currently owns Atari's original IP. After all, they paid for it. They bought the copyright. If someone else wanted the copyright to Combat, they could have ponied up the cash any one of the several times Atari's IP was for sale in the last 15 years and bought it.

 

In all of these discussions, I never hear a single real solution. Without copyright law, there is nothing to keep bigger companies from stealing original ideas from smaller companies. Nothing to keep anyone from stealing them from you or me. In those situations, the entity with the deepest pockets will always win. At least now, if any one of us does something truly creative, big companies are supposed to buy it from us rather than outright steal it. It's not foolproof, but at least that's part of the spirit of copyright law, and at least there's a chance that creative people will get paid...

[atariksi]

Granted they may not do anything, but that's what's written. So it would speculation and taking a risk to think they cannot do anything. So suppose I buy an original game for $39.99 and resell it for $89.99, you think that's allowed. And I don't think personal back-ups with softwares that are copy-protected is okay either in all cases.

They're not legally entitled to enforce what they've written. It was inside the box and not a term of purchase. This isn't speculation, it's the law in the US, and it has been tested in court.

 

They could also write "you must hand over $200 to us on the first friday of every month" on the disk label, but they couldn't enforce that either, since you didn't have a chance to disagree with those terms prior to purchasing the game.

...

So you are saying that US law overrides the license in the box? I would think that's the default when no license is in the box. Aren't normal users unaware of the DMCA/other copyright laws being modified/appended as much as the license in the box? Weren't copyrights only valid for 28 years or so after author passes away and now they are like 70 years?

 

And you're definitely within your legal rights to buy and sell a game at a higher price.

 

Personal backups with softwares that are copy-protected run afoul of the DMCA. They would not be legal in the US and other countries that have adopted DMCA style laws. (with the exception of software for obsolete systems)

 

At least the morals/ethics would get me if I read a license in the box that states "DO NOT SELL MY SOFTWARE" and I use it for 2 years and sell it for double the price or even less than the original price.

[potatohead]

Here's what I said. It's *CHEATING* to copy someone else's copy onto your original disk or obtain original disks off of Ebay or someone else who already used them and thus violate the single user rule. That's not a while license but the general license given for software.

In most countries it is allowed to sell software, no matter what the license says.

 

True, unless an actual contract is rendered and executed as a condition of sale, as in you either sign it, or don't get squat.

[potatohead]

In general, I think it's a shame that so many people are so against copyright law. I'm not saying everyone here, just a lot of what I've read on the internet from people who think copyright law is pointless/antiquated/dead. I guess they all think the professional artists, writers, and programmers will just make stuff for free.

 

(snip)

 

 

It's not foolproof, but at least that's part of the spirit of copyright law, and at least there's a chance that creative people will get paid...

 

Nobody is really against copyright. The idea of it is good, and the value of it is good, and it's necessary to support the creation of things, and most importantly, the core protection behind open source code. Copyright is good. Extending the term of it, like has been done is bad, and this is why:

 

All creative works are based off of other creative works. If we allow the flat out ownership of things, we quickly end up with a travesty, in that we cannot express ANYTHING! The cost of just deciding who owns what exceeds the value of the expression itself, so that's not good.

 

If there is no ownership at all, then we find only the bare minimum of expression is done, because the effort to render it doesn't pay for the cost of rendering it, and those who would live by expression starve, and our society, our lives as people, is poor. That's not good either.

 

The intent behind copyright is two fold:

 

1. To grant ownership for a limited time, so that those who produce creative works are rewarded for doing so

 

2. To establish that we have a commons to be used to build those new works we want to experience and reward people for. That is the public domain.

 

That term used to be 14 years, and that's too short.

 

It was doubled to 28 years, and that's actually pretty sweet, now it's something like 90+ life of author or some crap.

 

Here's the impact of that!

 

When Disney got started, the term was 28 years. What did Disney do? Why they took the works of the Brothers Grimm, whose term had expired, and created wonderful books, movies, and all the things that we know Disney does. All good right? We like Disney, and those works are good, and Disney was handsomly rewarded for all their fine works.

 

So far so good.

 

Now, some years later, the term on the Disney works comes to expire, and what happens? They get it extended, and extended again, and this last extension is so long that nobody alive today will see anything significant enter the commons, the public domain for as long as they live. That's how long Disney gets.

 

But what about the Brothers Grimm? What about that next Disney? What happens there?

 

Truth is, those very long extensions are theft. They are theft from the commons we use to make new works. Theft from the Public Domain. The cost of keeping Mickey Mouse protected is a more diluted set of works. Essentially, we see less creativity, and where we do see it, we see it only from the major creative producers, because they have all the properties and own them to form a fiefdom, where anybody wanting to be creative must pay them, because they have no recent, relevant commons to start from, like the established companies did, and so we get Rambo 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc...

 

The impact of this can be seen in many art forms, including this very industry, where the old works we enjoy would be out of term, public domain by now, free for people to rip, mix, burn, and build new things we might enjoy.

 

That, again, is at issue here, just so you are clear

[potatohead]

Personal backups with softwares that are copy-protected run afoul of the DMCA. They would not be legal in the US and other countries that have adopted DMCA style laws. (with the exception of software for obsolete systems)

 

Actually, your right to make a backup, archive copy is unchanged.

 

What the DMCA does is criminalize the distribution of the means and methods by which a backup can be made. Really smart people can do what they will, but for empowering other, not so smart people. The terms "trafficking" and "devices" are used in the law, to detail this.

 

The product of that is to circumvent a lot of case law that grants that reasonable and fair use of backups, with computer code, thus empowering digital creators with the ability to write their own rules, so long as they include an anti-circumvention "device", because ordinary people are barred from "trafficking" in such devices.

 

Which is why we get our code to watch a legally purchased DVD, on a legally purchased DVD player, on our legally purchased TV, with our legally purchased, and licensed mind you, computer, from Norway, where the act of circumvention is legal

 

To show how onerous this is, I once built up a computer running Mandrake 8, and could not play anything but unencrypted DVD media, using code from the US. Every year, there are a few titles not encrypted, and I don't know why, but there just are.

 

To actually play the DVD, I obtained code from France (Ogle), and typed in the DECSS from a song, produced in the US, because that form was not deemed "a device" at the time, and could then play my DVD, with the licenses and hardware I had legally purchased.

 

That's how silly it really is! Mix in the current code from Norway, and the average US citizen is a criminal for watching a movie.

 

On that particular combination, I setup a few scrips, one of which was to just play the movie on insert. The family used it, and loved it. Pop the thing in, get popcorn, and the movie starts 20 seconds later.

 

Sweet!!

 

Then, later they obtained an ordinary DVD player, and were pissed that they had to watch 12 minutes of previews, detailing all the stuff they could be watching that is cooler than the feature, EVERY TIME THEY WANTED TO VIEW, and there was nothing to be done about it.

 

The value of open code, wrongness of criminalization of these things, and the greed of the major media producers was revealed nicely that day, and remains.

 

(And yes, I do build nice, simple players for people, that just play movies, like they want them to do, and that's a damn crime. Funny huh?)

Edited March 31, 2010 by potatohead

[RevEng]

Actually, your right to make a backup, archive copy is unchanged.

 

What the DMCA does is criminalize the distribution of the means and methods by which a backup can be made. Really smart people can do what they will, but for empowering other, not so smart people. The terms "trafficking" and "devices" are used in the law, to detail this.

Actually, it does stop you from circumventing the digital controls, as well as telling others, providing the means, etc.

[Tickled_Pink]

And it's also "cheating" in one sense that you obtain original disks off of Ebay or someone else who already used them and thus violating the single user rule, but only moral/ethical people would stop themselves from doing this. Then following the logic of noncompliance of ethics/morality: "If you cheat, you mine as well lie."

That's just crazy. What's immoral in buying used software? Does buying used games makes people liars somehow?

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US we have what's called the First Sale Doctrine which states that a copyrighted item can be sold and the rights transferred to another.

 

So how does that work with licensed software, such as Microsoft's stuff? Much of Microsoft's licensing is non-transferrable.

[potatohead]

Read that title again:

 

* (B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph ©.

 

A backup is a non-infringing use. That's established law.

 

C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding on the record for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine -

 

* (i) the availability for use of copyrighted works;

 

* (ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;

 

* (iii) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;

 

* (iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and

* (v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.

 

Every three years, other uses are deemed "non-infringing" by the librarian, as deemed necessary, and I participate in the commentary each cycle to promote potential "non-infringing" uses, and have done so since the law was enacted.

[potatohead]

And it's also "cheating" in one sense that you obtain original disks off of Ebay or someone else who already used them and thus violating the single user rule, but only moral/ethical people would stop themselves from doing this. Then following the logic of noncompliance of ethics/morality: "If you cheat, you mine as well lie."

That's just crazy. What's immoral in buying used software? Does buying used games makes people liars somehow?

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US we have what's called the First Sale Doctrine which states that a copyrighted item can be sold and the rights transferred to another.

 

So how does that work with licensed software, such as Microsoft's stuff? Much of Microsoft's licensing is non-transferrable.

 

If the software does not utilize an online authentication scheme, the right of first sale applies.

 

Now you know why they do online activation now. It's still possible to transfer, but one has to think ahead, and be careful about what they say to Microsoft...

 

I will also take the time to point out http://www.openoffice.org operates well, and comes with no such silly restrictions

 

If you value that option, know that it is strongly protected by copyright, and threatened by software patents, which are under constant threat of legislation in the EU right now. Call your peeps to keep the open software open!

Edited March 31, 2010 by potatohead

[Tickled_Pink]

In general, I think it's a shame that so many people are so against copyright law. I'm not saying everyone here, just a lot of what I've read on the internet from people who think copyright law is pointless/antiquated/dead. I guess they all think the professional artists, writers, and programmers will just make stuff for free.

 

Copyright law allows for creators of original content to make money from their work. Millions of people who create books, TV, movies, comics, games, etc., all get to make a living and feed their families. If there was no reliable way to make a living being creative, professional-grade artists, photographers, writers, filmmakers, and programmers wouldn't create as much and culture would suffer.

 

What I haven't heard from anyone is a proposal for a decent system that would pay creators for their past works and support them while continue making new ones. Copyright law is currently the most effective system available. In the US, no one is going to put up with new taxes that in turn get redistributed to artists -- systems like that haven't ever succeeded here even when there was public support, which now there is not.

 

Even in the oft-cited evil Disney/Mickey Mouse copyright extensions, why not? Why shouldn't that company continue making money off intellectual property? I think that's completely reasonable, the same way that another company currently owns Atari's original IP. After all, they paid for it. They bought the copyright. If someone else wanted the copyright to Combat, they could have ponied up the cash any one of the several times Atari's IP was for sale in the last 15 years and bought it.

 

In all of these discussions, I never hear a single real solution. Without copyright law, there is nothing to keep bigger companies from stealing original ideas from smaller companies. Nothing to keep anyone from stealing them from you or me. In those situations, the entity with the deepest pockets will always win. At least now, if any one of us does something truly creative, big companies are supposed to buy it from us rather than outright steal it. It's not foolproof, but at least that's part of the spirit of copyright law, and at least there's a chance that creative people will get paid...

 

 

I'm certainly not opposed to copyright law. It is there to protect and encourage people to develop, release and ultimately profit from their creativity.

 

What I am opposed to is the stringent and sometimes heavy handed approach to enforcement. The music, movie and software industries lose money but not to the extent that is claimed. Some people copy and download for the sake of it. Others, however, download because they simply cannot afford the prices or they just download stuff that they think they might like but wouldn't ordinarily buy. To class every download or copy made as a loss is just plain wrong.

 

For instance, at the moment I have Maya 2010, 3DS Max, Adobe Creative Suite CS4 and Mudbox on my PC. None have been bought. Have Autodesk or Adobe lost money? No. There's no way I could afford the cost of these packages. Does it make it right that I've got them? Probably not. I could have used Blender and GIMP for some of the stuff. But it is nice to have a choice. And who know? Maybe if I one day figure out the software so I'm an expert on them I may well find that I have the money and the need to buy them.

 

So that's a potential net gain for the companies involved. To be honest, I can see the day when software such as this becomes either download only or free, with fees being levvied for an annual support license (rather than a software license), training and other materials. So the software would be more accessible to those who otherwise couldn't afford it and would give the developers a potential for more clients.

 

I don't really download much music. Don't like most of the modern stuff.

[potatohead]

IMHO, Blender really is your only non-criminal choice. The others are infringing, just so you know.

 

I personally would not be talking that other software up as "a choice" That's the kind of thing best kept private.

Edited March 31, 2010 by potatohead

[RevEng]

Read that title again

Ah, thanks for the correction.

[potatohead]

It's a total mess. No worries. I was quite active at this time, and soaked up a lot more than I probably need to know

[potatohead]

...in these discussions, I never hear a single, real solution...

 

Well, the real solution is to roll back the extension terms to something reasonable, so that ordinary people see things enter the public domain that are somewhat relevant, and can use those to build new works!

 

There is a balance between making sure people get rewarded for their works, while not inhibiting fair / public uses of those works to create new works.

 

That's really the only dilemma.

 

The long terms we see now have reduced the public domain, making it difficult to create and profit from new works. Under the current term lengths, anything of significance really is subject to the approval of the established creative companies, and that's unacceptable. It's unacceptable in that real creative works, that are new works, that could compete with existing works, isn't a viable proposition for the average Joe, and it should be. It should be, because we might all enjoy the next Disney, but we won't get to see that because the current Disney doesn't want to compete.

 

If the term is reduced, then the balance makes more sense for everybody, and that's the necessary solution, IMHO.