On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 12:36:43PM -0700, Chris Alvarez wrote: > > That's because that's the constitutional reason *for* copyright. Copyright > > doesn't exist because it's "good for the artist". > > Then I am a revolutionary. I think I should be free to do things for > my own profit instead of for the good of society. That sounds a lot > like enforcing "altruistic intentions"
you're free to do things for your own profit, but the purpose of copyright is not to protect you in that... > > > I also can't sell you some software and restrict (other than copying) how > > you use it in the privacy of your own home. > > Well, remember one thing: you bought a license of the software, not > the software itself. If you rent a movie at blockbuster, you bought > the right to play it in the privacy of your own home as many times as > you would like. You did not buy the movie. Consider buying a license > for my software as "undefinetely long borrowing". now, you're getting into the destinction between licenses and copyrights > > > If you sell me your $1,000,000 graphics package and tell me I can only use > > it once and then I must delete it, you better have something besides > > copyright to enforce that, because I'm sure as heck going to make a backup > > copy of it and use it as much as I like. > > Well, when you bought it you agreed to the terms (a.k.a gave your > word) that you would not do that. You are not only going against the > law that protects my copyright, but you are also breaking your own actually, he's not breaking the copyright in this instance... only the license, which may or may not stand up in a court of law. I have read someplace that certain items in certain licenses cannot be enforced in certain states. Also, you're assuming that A) he knew the exact terms of the license before purchasing and B) the terms of the license are not too complicated, or in legalese. If either of those two conditions are not true, I would claim that if he breaks the license, it is not an issue of dishonesty on his part > word and becoming a liar. Don't word it as "telling me I can only use > it once and then I must delete it". The real wording should be "and I > agreed with you at the moment of purchase to use it once and delete it > afterwards". If you didn't agree or intend to uphold the conditions, > then you should not have bought it. Obviously the trade was not > benefitial to you. In that case you should go get Maya, 3D Max or > Blender. You knew the conditions from the very beginning. If you still > purchased it with the intention to break the end-user agreement, then > obviously you meant to lie and deceive me, and therefore you are a > criminal. That is why "the government should hold a gun to their heads > and force them to behave in a certain way", using the same symbolism > that Michael was using earlier. > > I guess I will put you on my "do-not-lend-money" list since I guess I > cannot trust your integrity, regardless of whether you would ask me > for money or not. > > > Copyright was not intended, nor can it (outside of the DMCA) be used to > > control a copyrighted work. It was intended to secure, for limited times, > > an exclusive "right to copy" to allow the author to recoup his or her > > costs, giving people incentive to create more works, thus furthering the > > progress of science and the useful arts. > > > > The best example of this I saw on Slashdot--my favorite author is Isaac > > Asimov. He wrote hundreds upon hundreds of books, and was able to secure > > quite a nice living from them. In the absence of copyright, he probably > > would have had to hold down some other job and would probably have written > > considerably fewer books, which I would consider to be a great loss. > > > > Copyright didn't exist so that Asimov could make a fortune--copyright > > existed so that Asimov would write more books for me to read. > > Well, whatever. I am pretty sure that Asimov was not thinking of you > when he wrote his books. > > > Again, that's because that's what the constitutionally defined role of > > copyright is, and that's how the courts have interpretted copyright again > > and again. > > Well, I am glad that regardless of what the courts say, I still can > make my own end-user agreements. Or at least my self-created right to > put conditions on my software is being enforced as opposed to the > Michael-created right to copy. Please put your EULA on the outside of the box, in large print, and keep it in < 100 words (and no legalese). Maybe then your buyers will actually read it before deciding whether to buy the product. Most companies put the EULA inside the box, so you have to actually open the box to read it. However, if the box is opened, most software dealers won't refund the full purchase money... Also, it's very rare for people to actually read the EULAs because they are long, confusing and full of legalese. > > Chris Alvarez > > -------------------- > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > > The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their > author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list -- Erin Sharmahd [EMAIL PROTECTED] CS Student Unix Users Group PGP Fingerprint: F352 FF41 EA0A 67E4 566B 3B5B E65A D3DC 083E 9336
pgpOP4gHqNws5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
