Copyright law says people who do not own the copyright can't copy. Blizzard owns the code, and they did not give transfer their copyright to their users when they sold the product to their user. The license grants users limited rights they didn't have without the licene.

Last I read copyright law, it covers derivative works. Yes, that means users can't modify their copy if they do not own the copyright. The other half of your statement changes nothing. That's why I didn't quote it. It was totally irrelevant.

Dozens of times.

Would taking a photograph be considered creating a copy?

In this case, you're wrong. I just peel off the sticker and I can take as many pictures of the bananna I want. There is no copyright on the shape, texture, or color of the bananna. Genetically modified doesn't matter, because a photograph does not record genetic information.

I can also paint it. I am not modifying any copyrighted material by painting a bannana.

Obviously, that is something that is typically only enforced for things like movies (Unlike trademarks, there is no risk of losing the protections of copyright because you didn't consistently enforce it), but under the law as written, the copyright holder *could* sue you for violation of copyright based on your putting a photo of your couch on Ebay.

More to the point, using the exact same reasoning as is being used for the WoW/Blizzard case - they *could* stick a license agreement on the sale of the couch saying you don't own the couch - the design is just as copyrighted as the design of a software program, and if you don't recognize any proteection for consumers in being bound by such a hidden agreement, then you would be just as bound by it.

Would a court support such an interpretation?

Assuming that the case we're discussing is a valid precedent, they would have to either -

A.) Find something in the law that says the copyright on the design of a couch is different from the copyright of software on a CD - unlikely, moviestudios actually pay for the licenses on this stuff. I do mean that literally - they have to license the image of the furniture they use.

B.) Find something in the law saying that you can't attach an EULA to a couch but can to a CD. If there is anything to that effect, I'm not aware of it - "But But But - That's *Silly*" is a valid objection, but not a legal one.

C.) Overturn this precedent.

Even if you are guaranteed certain rights under the law?

Lets make this clear - do you believe anyone that owns any intellectual property has the right to deprive you of the rights to use that property that were granted under the law?

Well, yes there is something forcing them to give me some. The law. The law that this case says anyone with an EULA can ignore if they've written it properly.

What in the world makes you think you can't compare a copyrighted code to a copyrighted design?

An original $100,000 statue is copyrighted intellectual property, and a photo of that statue is a "Derivative work", and you can't sell a photo of a statue you don't have a license to. (Personal photos are almost certainly "Fair Use", but oddly enough that is *not* a sure thing - used on a web page for instance).

A copy of that statue is a licensed copy, and you can't sell a photo of that copy of the statue, without a license.

An original $10,000 designer sofa is also copyrighted, a one of a kind object, and taking a photo of that is creating a derivative work, requiring a license or a "Fair Use" provision.

A mass produced copy of that sofa is a licensed use of that original copyrighted design, taking phot requires the same licensing or fair use rights that taking a photo of the original did.

An original, $1,000, ugly, sofa is *still* an original, copyrightable product, and making copies of in either photographic or mass produced form requires the *exact* *same* *rights*.

I actually had, UNDER THE LAW, *more* rights to use the software on the CD I owned than I do to make a photographic copy of my couch. But it an EULA on a CD is valid and binding upon me as a consumer, there is absolutely nothing in the law that I can find that makes an EULA on  the couch any less binding.

I would be delighted for you to prove otherwise.

Jonnan

It's a derivative work isn't it?

Really? Do you have a case to that effect?

I think it's a silly thought myself - but everything on the screen of a computer is a derivative work of the code of the program that is putting it on the screen.

All the banana's harvested in the world today are clones, and are in danger of dying off because a parasitic fungus is attacking the crops, and there are no breed with resistance - like I said they're all clones.

Bob the geneticist develops a retrovirus that produces a plague resitant banana. That Gene sequence he develops is simply a set of genetic commands for DNA, just as the code for Galactic Civilizations is a series of commands for the CPU - so I don't see that gene sequence being less protected than the code for Galciv II.

The output of the GalCiv code is just as protected as the code itself. Is the "Output" of Bob's code going to be less protected?

Jonnan

No, it doesn't.  The license rescinds rights you have under the copyright statutes.  Didn't you already pull a mea culpa on this earlier?  Modding and distributing those mods is the only thing I've seen a license give that is forbidden under copyright.

See my wording on the last paragraph?  Distribution is not allowed.  You can do whatever the fuck you want with your own personal copy.

Furthermore, no license is needed to "give" rights covered by copyright.  I see it in other copyrighted works all the time.  It's routine to see an exclusion for educational purposes listed in books.  To allow mods, you simply allow them.  It's nothing more than a simple statement included with the copyright notice.  Instead of "All rights reserved" you state that modification and distribution of those modifications for other owners of the original product is expressly allowed and reserve all other rights.

A license is required when you want to bind someone to a contractual obligation.  Such as the actual reason we have copyright licensing, for a copyright holder to license production of his works out to a publisher without selling the copyrights themselves.

Time to debunk some of the stupidity that's crept in.

Physical designs are covered by patent laws, not copyright. The plans to such items might be copyrightable, but not the items themselves. What might be covered by copyright is any artistic rendering on the item (a specific, distinctive color pattern or something).

"the design of a useful article [...] shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-notes.html

In a wide variety of cases, yes - taking a photo can indeed infringe. Taking a picture of someone wearing a T-shirt with a copyrighted design printed on it can be infringing. So can taking a picture of a painting, or a TV broadcast, or in many countries, taking pictures of archetecture or sculpture on public display. Fair use rulings can go pretty much any way you could imagine, but it's best to assume anything you can photograph can be at least a potential infringement.

Assuming they put the same effort into informing the consumer, namely a warning of such a license before purchase and a full-text agreement the consumer MUST agree to before ass hits cushion, probably yes.

Unfortunately for the rest of your point here, this case at present can be a useful legal reference, but not binding precident. District-level cases are non-binding even on the same district. If one side or the other were to appeal this decision, the Circuit decision would create precident.

As it turns out, even a personal photo is likely NOT fair use, unless the statue is not the prime focus of the statue. Taking a picture of the statue itself would be blatant infringement, a picture of your family in front of it would probably be fair use.

Technically, copies are made with permission, and that permission does not *necessarily* mean it is licensed. Otherwise, true.

This would be arguable, under the utilitarian object rule I cited earlier. The distinctive patterns on a designer couch MIGHT qualify if the design can exist separate from the couch it's on. A plain couch pretty much fails to reach the standard of original work to pass this test.

In this, at least, CobraAI is correct for a variety of reasons. Most commercial bananas are not genetically engineered (yet) - the genetic issues are due to natural cloning methods, not genetic manipulation, so no one owns the rights to them at all. Also, even if they *were* protected by copyright, the owner of the rights needs to be able to prove he owns the rights on the object photographed. Unless the engineering leaves a distinctive mark on the peel, removing the sticker or simply taking the photo from an angle that doesn't show the sticker would prevent this. Finally, a banana by itself is unlikely to pass the utilitarian object test.

This is true, the owner of the rights to genetically modifications can own the output of the seeds containing it. In fact, in Monsanto Company v McFarling, the various levels of federal courts upheld the license agreement McFarling signed, which said he was not allowed to keep any of his harvest from one year to plant the next - he was contractually obligated to buy new seed, and violating the contract violated Monsanto's patents on the seeds in question.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/05-1570.pdf 

The Supreme Court upheld this decision without even bothering to hear arguments or make comment.

To preemptively address the points Jonnan is about to bring up - yes, he had a physical copy of the license to sign, so he at least had the possibility of actually reading it. By his actions he apparently DIDN'T read it, but he had the chance. So no, this has no direct bearing on whether notice of such a license would have been sufficient.

To my knowledge, he did not have a Monsanto rep there to explicitly explain the terms of the agreement when he signed.

While any farmer would qualify as a "merchant" in buying seed, as it would be part of their occupation, I do not believe the average farmer has any more or less knowledge of technology licensing agreements compared to the general public. It is not a primary skill involved in the job.

Did I miss anything?

I don't think the law has ever recognized a computer program as being a legal entity, and I have yet to see a computer program sue a person.

It is? Since when? I'd say no, the output of code is not protected under copyright law, since the developer did not write the output of the code. The code itself would certainly be protected, but the output would not be protected unless the output contained a portion of the code that created the output.

The user has very few rights under copyright law. Nearly all of rights are held by the copyright holder.

I would not expect the law to suddenly become null and void based on mea culpa, so even if I did, it would not matter.

I have seen many licenses that give the user the right to create copies - The GPL and Creative Commons licenses generally do.

You're right, distribution of copies is not allowed. Creating copies is also not allowed. No, a user may not do whatever they want - they do not own the copyright!

Yes, you may do that if you wish on works where you own the copyright. Keep in mind that "all rights reserved" is assumed when no explicit copyright notice is given.

Thank you for actually answering my question . That was actually an honest question . . .

Well, you seem to be discussing patents rather than copyrights. Genetic material copies itself, so the seeds would have the same patented genetic material as the parents.

If the seeds did not contain a copy of the genetic material of the parents, it is possible that the case might not have been upheld.

Cobra - yes, the output of computer code is generally covered with the code. A screenshot of a game being played could be a cause for action as infringement, depending on how it was being used.

The user has considerable rights under copyright law if they can get "owner of a copy" protection under section 117. Licensing the software is the only legal alternative for the software maker to avoid giving the user those rights.

If the user is given section 117 coverage, it would be more accurate to say they can do whatever they want TO their personal copy, there are still copyright limitations on what they can do WITH it (copy, multiple uses, etc.). Limited reverse engineering, modification, stuff like that would be allowed, but they would not be allowed to share the results of those efforts with others. Modifying a game to work on your specific hardware would be allowed, transferring those modifications to others with the same hardware would not be.

The gene sequence in the seed is copyrighted, not patented. If this were patented, it would already be in the public domain. And if the second generation seeds didn't have the genes in it, Monsanto wouldn't have cared - those seeds would not have been violating their copyright.

Thanks Willy.

Even the devil himself gets it.

Since you sem to have a lack in your english skills, this is the definition of mea culpa.  Earlier in the thread, you discovered that you really could use software without violating copyright regardless of the presence of a license after Jonnan linked the relevant law for the zillionth time.  Get it?

Virtually everything we touch is outputted by code created by somebody else. So do the words I type belong to myself or Microsoft? Would adobe own a digital image I create? Even the code I type goes through a compiler. So I guess WoW really belongs to Microsoft, not to Blizzard.

Umm, no. I'm not convinced.

The screenshot would more likely be found infringing due to the artwork, not some algorithm. In addition, it may also contain trademarked material.

I merely sorted out the definition of a word. That's a far cry from a complete mea culpa.

I see you are changing your story. Can you make up your mind, please? Are we talking patents or copyrights?

Jesus Cristo, Why aren't you saying all this shit in the courtroom instead of on a forum?!

Stardock Log entry page #17...

Situation unchanged.

Still no discernible evidence of intelligent life....

....and the debate rages on.

Had all this typing energy expenditure been focused to something functional you'd probably have moved the entire Earth 2 inches to the left...

. . . and Jafo, you're totally right. I'm sure we could talk for the next 5 years and not agree on half of this stuff . . .

. . . and with that said, I'm gonna leave this thread . . .

The law does not give you the right to cheat in a game. (if you dont think that botting is cheating you should get a dose of morale values yourself instead of accusing other of having none)

The law does not give you the right to use any _inofficial_ "extensions" to a program.

So i do not see how you could get the right the use a bot from the law.

The law gives owners of a copy of a program certain rights which are NECESSARY for consuming. But nothing beyonf that and all rights for the code are reserved.

Still you cannot buy a copy of WoW(who would buy something that you can download for free from the source?), only WoW accounts. Thats the very nature of subscription mmos. Again, if this contradicts with contract law, the wording of the eulas does not matter to much.

Kryo, can I get a Great Satan medal?

That's not even close to being the output of code. You have significant creative input in those situations. Output of a code would be something like the rendering of environmental parts of the WoW environment - the image itself is not contained in the code, but the instructions to make it are.

The second part is actually very close to correct - algorithms can't be copyrighted, but the "artwork" generated by one can be.

Yeah, I screwed up, that  should have been copyright. Sometimes I miss things like that when I post right before bed.

Well, it might be because no one in this topic has passed the bar exam. But pretty much everything you've read has been through a courtroom at one time or another, with inconsistent results.

[quote]Had all this typing energy expenditure been focused to something functional you'd probably have moved the entire Earth 2 inches to the left...[quote]

What makes you think I can't do both at the same time? Didn't you feel everything lurch just a bit last Thursday?

Yeah, it actually does - IF you have "owner of a copy" protection under section 117. Which explains why software companies use EULAs to prevent you from getting that status. And you should note that this does not exclusively apply to MMOs, almost ALL commercial software comes with an EULA to deny you the section 117 protections.

See, Willy knows, he just thinks it's entirely reasonable for the software industry to circumvent our rights in an underhanded manner.

The rest of you are just brain damaged and can't read.