Burning music CDs
in [UK Linux]
|
From: unruh on 1 Feb 2010 18:54 On 2010-02-01, Daniel James <daniel(a)me.invalid> wrote: > In article <87y6jedyz1.fsf(a)newton.gmurray.org.uk>, Graham Murray wrote: >> No. The GPL specifically states that it is not concerned with >> using/running the software. It is purely concerned with making copies of >> it, which is not allowed without permission of the copyright owner, and >> distribution of such copies. > > Yes, OK -- I did say that my account was also a simplification, and maybe > it was also a little sloppily put. > > I said that a licence grants the licensee certain rights to "use" the > licensed thing -- and so it does. In the case of the GPL the right of use > that is granted is the right to copy, another license might grant a right > to execute. Don't be distracted from the wood by the trees. Nope. copyright law controls copying not using. Since the ONLY place that the license gets any legal weight it has is from the copyright act, and since the copyright act only discusses copyring, not executing, the license's legal power only extends to copying. > >> Compare this with many other, especially so called 'End User >> Licences' which seek to impose restrictions on actions which would be >> allowed in the absence of the so called 'licence'. > > From the legal POV it's just the same. Without a licence only the > copyright holder can do anything with the software, with a licence any No. Only the legal owner can copy the software. > licensee can do whatever the licence permits subject to the conditions The license sets out the conditions under which it can be copied. Nothing else. > under which the licence is granted. The licence may permit copying the > software, giving it away, selling it, running it, linking to it, > debugging it, reverse engineering it, or feeding it pizza -- the law It can say whatever it want. That has no force under law. It could demand that you your firstborn to Donald Trump. But no court would enforce that. > doesn't care which, it just provides a mechanism by which the copyright > holder can make some or all of his rights in the software available to > other parties subject to whatever terms he chooses to impose. It is the right of copying that the law controls. Not something else. > > Cheers, > Daniel. > > >
From: unruh on 1 Feb 2010 19:00 On 2010-02-01, Daniel James <daniel(a)me.invalid> wrote: > In article <slrnhmbepi.jm9.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, Unruh wrote: >> No. It has legal status as a part of copyright law. > > Well, I said I wasn't a lawyer -- and what law I do know about is the law of > England and Wales -- but I would say that that is generally false. Copyright > grants rights to the creator of a work. A licence is (among other things) a > device by which that creator can allow others to make use of those rights, and > a contract is the legal glue that holds these things together and gives them > some force in law. There is no contract. there is a license which operates under copyright law. that is why many companies try to get you to sign a piece of paper and send it to them under guise of giving you a warrenty for example. That would make a contract. > > Copyright law is essentially concerned with describing what rights the creator No. It controls the rights of copying ( and in most of the world, moral rights as well-- the right of having his name associated with the work) > has, not how he may dispose of them. > >> No, you cannot "implicitly accept the terms". The law is not that >> stupid. > > It's not stupid, and you can. > > Imagine I devise a magic cough medicine and advertise it saying "take our cough > mixture twice a day for a week and your cough will be cured, or we'll give you > a thousand pounds". You have a cough, you buy the medicine and take it twice a > day for a week, and you still have a cough. You ask for the thousand pounds. > Under English law the position would be that I had offered a contract in the > wording of my advertisement and that you had implicitly accepted it by buying > the medicine and taking it as described. I would have to pay up or be in breach Yes, you can bind yourself. You cannot bind someone else. Thus if you said "If you are cured, you must send me 1000 pounds" that would be invalid, and no court would uphold it. > of contract. You would have to pay, I would not. > > How else would an advert like that have any force in law? You can bind yourself. you cannot bind others. > > Here - it seems Google is my friend: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Company > >> > Copy rights are protected by civil law, not criminal law, so it is not >> > a crime to break >> >> That depends on the country. In some countries it is a criminal act to >> violate copyright. >> >> > another's copyright (i.e. it is not 'illegal'), > > [Replying in the middle of a sentence of the text you are commenting on is > tantamount to top posting -- please don't!] > > As I said, I can speak only for English law, and not with any great authority > for that. > > However, it does seem a bit heavy-handed. Suppose that a citizen wrote (say) a > short poem, printed it on handbills, and distributed it to passers-by at a > street corner. Suppose, then, that someone at the local newspaper heard of this > and obtained a copy and printed the poem with a story describing the event. Are > you suggesting that in some jurisdiction, somewhere, the proprietors of the > newspaper would be guilty of a criminal act in publishing the poem? Yes. > > Guilty or breach of copyright? Yes. Liable to pay some compensation to the > aspiring poet? Yes. Criminal? Preposterous. Sorry. You agree with Dickens then. > >> > These things are all interlinked, and it makes no sense to try to think of >> > them as different things. >> >> These things? > > These things: Copyright, licences, contracts. They are different things. And contracts require explicit agreement by both parties.
From: Richard Kettlewell on 2 Feb 2010 05:03 unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes: > On 2010-02-01, Daniel James <daniel(a)me.invalid> wrote: >> I said that a licence grants the licensee certain rights to "use" the >> licensed thing -- and so it does. In the case of the GPL the right of use >> that is granted is the right to copy, another license might grant a right >> to execute. Don't be distracted from the wood by the trees. > > Nope. copyright law controls copying not using. Since the ONLY place > that the license gets any legal weight it has is from the copyright > act, and since the copyright act only discusses copyring, not > executing, the license's legal power only extends to copying. Using software involves making a copy of it (for instance, copying from disk to RAM). These copies indeed restricted by copyright law (CDPA1988 17(6)). So copyright law does control using software. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
From: Richard Kettlewell on 2 Feb 2010 05:26 Richard Kettlewell <rjk(a)greenend.org.uk> writes: > unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> writes: >> Nope. copyright law controls copying not using. Since the ONLY place >> that the license gets any legal weight it has is from the copyright >> act, and since the copyright act only discusses copyring, not >> executing, the license's legal power only extends to copying. > > Using software involves making a copy of it (for instance, copying from > disk to RAM). These copies indeed restricted by copyright law (CDPA1988 "are indeed". (Sorry.) > 17(6)). So copyright law does control using software. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
From: Daniel James on 2 Feb 2010 14:48
In article <slrnhmeqpi.m61.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, Unruh wrote: > ... contracts require explicit agreement by both parties. As far as English law is concerned that is just not true, and there is ample case law to demonstrate the fact. I can't speak for whatever passes for law wherever you happen to be ... Cheers, Daniel. |