Okay, I wasn't careful enough with my language. I'm not meaning to accuse you. Not that you're being very careful with your own language. "Crackhead?"

I'm not saying they should give up fighting bots in the conventional manner. This is not a mutually exclusive matter.

And I did not say cancer was not fatal.

You have a really poor grasp on logic if you think that is what I had meant. That's a false dilemma: I most certainly was not saying you should make outrageous claims.

You admit you haven't tried it, and that it's merely a hypothetical. So make your point and move on.

Okay, you want to gather in a larger variety of people, that's okay. I just don't think playing around with controversial software is the best way to do it. They have a system for making suggestions and filing complaints.

Other than what I have already repeated many times? Do you really have a point lurking around here somewhere? I'm not interested in skirting the issue. You already know I'd just make another speech about the law and ethics. Make your point, please.

I've looked up the occasional EULA online.

For the items you're listed, I haven't created any copies of them. If for some odd reason I wanted to attempt to create a copy of the firmware on a CD player, yes I'd have to ask them for permission.

Don't need to. I'm not copying it. Copyright law covers copying, not usage. Blizzard has to make the case that copying was done. If they fail in that regard, they can easily lose the entire case. Very easily.

Really?

You mean sir - that you've never taken a photograph of any item you own?

Because the physical design for virtually anything is copyrighted no - that's why I brought up moviemaking - it's a genuine problem there - {G}. That includes your couch, your furniture, your clothing and that slinky thing your girlfriend only wears when she want's something. So better not photograph anything.

And of course, virtually every DVD player is, internally, a computer now - so you need to look at the license agreement of every DVD you own. Same for your CD's as well. I'm sure the license agreement allows for standard use, but if they are withdrawing the license agreement when used on days evenly divisible by prime numbers, you need to check that.

And of course the DVD Hardware is flash updatable, so whenever you turn your DVD back on a copying operation is performed from eprom to memory.

I mean come on - if you're going to make statements like the one that kicked this off - you need to make sure you check these things - <G>.

And the banana's of course can't have photos taken of them either. Nor can they be painted - those genetically modified banana's are copyrighted.

You have to know these things when you're a king - {G}.

Jonnan

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

You found sectio 117, but you couldn't find anything about "Owner of a Copy" protections in section 117?

Really?

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

Did you, perchance, look at the first paragraph of section 117 where is says that it's not an infringement on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner (section 106) for the "Owner of Copy" to create copies provided (1) that making a copy is an essential step in using the program on the machine, or (2) you're doing so to make a backup.

Cuz, y'know, that's like, the, um, first paragraph of Title 17§ 117, which you seem to have found. There is actually a paragraph elsewhere in the copyright act which goes to to trouble of defining the "Owner of a Copy" as being separate from the "Owner of Copyright", i.e., the person who bought and owns the disk, rather than owning the copyrighted material on the disk.

I confess, additionally, I'm a bit confused by the statement that "I just couldnt imagine it."?

You just can't imagine that U.S. law would allow for using a program you bought lawfully in the manner it was explicitly designed to be used without forcing you to accept an additional civil contract?

That's not lack of imagination, that's lack of good sense.

Jonnan

Edit: Apologies - I have no Idea why it's insisting on the 'link' highlight after in the 'section' marker there, It's never done that before, but by ythe same token, it doesn'n't seem to want to let me remove it

I blame gremlins- Jonnan