Am I anti-windows? Maybe. I still like a few odd games developed for Windows only. However, they are older games that I played back before I made the switch to 100% Linux. At this current time, I have decided to only buy games that support Linux natively. So far, the Humble Indie Bundle has provided me with more games than I can play right now.
However, I did not seek out my graphics card because of The Witcher. I got my graphics card because the manufacturer supports Linux with native drivers.
As for your insistence that Linux is difficult to use, only if you want it to be. Ubuntu and several other distros have made huge stride toward user friendliness and installing drivers is as easy as clicking a menu option during set up.
Just because you only research one side of an argument, does not mean that I am ignorant. A truly prepared debater will research not only his own position, but also that of their opponent.
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg requires that the person violating the license actually have the opportunity to read and "click through" the license. As a purchaser of a DVD, you are not prompted to attest that you agree to the terms, agreement to whatever license that may or may not be available has no such opportunity to explicatively agree.
A better case to apply to this instance would be that of Specht vs. Netscape in which the court found:
a reasonably prudent Internet user in circumstances such as these would not have known or learned of the existence of the license terms before responding to defendants’ invitation to download the free software, and that defendants therefore did not provide reasonable notice of the license terms.
In this case, a purchaser of a DVD would not have known or learned of the license terms of such a shrink wrap license before being bound by the terms by opening the DVD. There is no reasonable notice to the terms of the license prior to opening the DVD.
So the legal status of such terms as applies to this situation and really any situation is still very much in debate at this point. It has not official legal standing other than in some instances they are binding, in the case of someone explicitly agreeing, and they are not, in such cases where there is no reasonable notice or opportunity to reject or agree.
Ah. Shrinkwrap licenses. That is certainly one way to look at it, even though the shrinkwrap license has not been tested in court.
It is also interesting that instead of actual legal documentation of whether this practice is illegal, you cite a link to an article on a pro-industry website quoting industry lawyers.
I would seriously love to see shrinkwrap licenses tested in court. Unfortunately, no one in the movie or music industry is will to risk it. Until such a time as it is proven in court that shrinkwrap licenses are legally binding, I would like to fault on the side of first sale and fair use.
That case involves the transfer and sale of software licenses in which the company transferring ownership of actually agreed to terms stating they could not transfer the ownership of the software.
Better put:
Company A bought a non-transferable license for Autodesk software.
Company A then gave away that software when they stopped using it.
Guy B picked up the software and then sold it.
While Guy B never agreed to the license, company A did and that superceded guy B's right to sell the software on eBay.
That does not apply in this case as the movie has not been redeemed and no one has agreed to a non-transferable license. This is nothing more than one person saying "I don't want to use this service I have not signed up for. You can purchase my right to use it for $5".
I can quote case law for you all day long. Exactly what point would you like me to cite? I'm happy to back it up.
Please cite the case law that states that an unredeemed code for a service for which the person transferring the code has never signed up for and never plans to sign up for is a non-transferable license.
What non-transferable license? There is no such "non-transferrable" license involved here. He bought a movie. That movie is itself transferable. He decided that instead of transferring the whole pack, he would transfer a part that he was not using. That is well within his first sale rights as a consumer.
I know you don't understand this, but think of it this way. Let's say you buy a bedding set. You like the comforter, the sheets but not the sham. You have a right to separate out the sham from the rest of the package and sell or give it away. Same here.
Or let's say you buy a variety pack of potato chips. You don't like one particular flavor so you give or sell the flavor you don't like.
Or in this case, someone bought a combo pack of a movie and sold off the part they don't like and will never use. It is dead weight to them. It is transferable, both physically and legally.
Please, cite the case law that states it is not legal to do this. I will wait for you, although I know I will be waiting for quite some time as you will ignore this request for an actual legal citation.
The problem with the license issue is that you did not agree to any specific terms when buying the combo pack. If you do not have a UV account and have not redeemed the UV code, you are not liable to those terms either.
Without some sort of license that someone must agree to, then you can't even claim it as a violation of a license.
I am surprised that it takes 20 years in your scenario. At the rate the US is going, I can see mass protests that eclipse the Occupy movement is less than 5.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 23 Apr 2012 @ 10:05am
Re:
They are a non-transferable license, so selling them off is a violation of copyright.
I think you are a bit confused here. Violating a Terms of Service is not copyright infringement. Secondly, the person selling the code has not redeemed the code, has never agreed to the terms of the "license" and is thus not liable for violating it. However, even if they did, that is not Copyright infringement.
The idea of UV is a system to allow you to move your legally paid for content from device to device, just as you freetardian types have been whining about for years.
Nothing wrong with the idea of UV. The problem lies in the implementation. They claim you are getting a digital copy, but all the limitations and blockades to using it in a convenient way makes the service useless for the informed consumer.
But you can see the issue right away, as some people think of it as multiple copies they can just sell for a profit.
What profit? The guy bought a $30 Bluray/DVD/UV combo pack and sold the UV code for $5. There is no profit gained. He is still out $25.
Even in this case and the one you describe, the customer is not selling a "second hand" digital good as it has not been redeemed and is still technically first hand. I honestly don't see how it is really a "jerk" move. It is someone unloading something they don't want and that someone else values enough to pay money for. If you don't like that kind of market, then you should get out of the business of giving away free download codes.
The Ultraviolet code is not tied to the Bluray or DVD discs in any way. Why would selling an unused code be a problem? When you buy these packs you are getting 3 separate and distinct parts. Non of which are tied to the other in any way other than being in the same box. This is like buying a packaged game in which you get 5 games for one price. You would not be committing copyright infringement for selling the games you didn't want.
My current Graphics card came with the Witcher. I have also gotten Far Cry as well. Don't play either of them, but the Witcher has always been of interest to me, just haven't had the time to fire it up in Wine on Linux.
If they are screwing it up that bad, someone will come in and replace them with a better product, at a better price, that will make economic sense for both the consumers and the sellers.
Amazon has stepped in and is replacing them. The reaction of the publishing industry was to collude with one another and force Amazon to do it their way. Has it slowed down Amazon? Sure, but they are still well on their way to replacing the publishing industry. Other digital publishing services are taking over the market as well.
I went the opposite route. I ditched the DVD portion and kept the streaming. Why?
1) Because I have kids and Netflix streaming has a whole lot of really great kids shows and movies that I am happy for them to watch.
2) There are a lot of television shows available for it that my Wife and I enjoy watching that we can't get otherwise. We don't always know which show we will feel like watching each night and would hate to be locked in to a particular show via DVD if we were not in the mood.
3) The convenience of Redbox made the need for the DVD side pointless. At 1 DVD at a timeI would have to get 8 or more DVDs a month to be cheaper than Redbox, but we only watched 1 a week at most. So the switch was a net gain for my family.
Yeah. $2.2 billion a year is nothing to sneeze at. OI would suspect that at least half of that is going out in licensing deals to various studios and networks. Probably more than half.
The problem seems to be on the side of the studios and networks which are collectively asking for way more than Netflix earns in revenue. Kind of like how the music labels tried to kill internet radio.
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
However, I did not seek out my graphics card because of The Witcher. I got my graphics card because the manufacturer supports Linux with native drivers.
As for your insistence that Linux is difficult to use, only if you want it to be. Ubuntu and several other distros have made huge stride toward user friendliness and installing drivers is as easy as clicking a menu option during set up.
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A better case to apply to this instance would be that of Specht vs. Netscape in which the court found:
a reasonably prudent Internet user in circumstances such as these would not have known or learned of the existence of the license terms before responding to defendants’ invitation to download the free software, and that defendants therefore did not provide reasonable notice of the license terms.
In this case, a purchaser of a DVD would not have known or learned of the license terms of such a shrink wrap license before being bound by the terms by opening the DVD. There is no reasonable notice to the terms of the license prior to opening the DVD.
So the legal status of such terms as applies to this situation and really any situation is still very much in debate at this point. It has not official legal standing other than in some instances they are binding, in the case of someone explicitly agreeing, and they are not, in such cases where there is no reasonable notice or opportunity to reject or agree.
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is also interesting that instead of actual legal documentation of whether this practice is illegal, you cite a link to an article on a pro-industry website quoting industry lawyers.
I would seriously love to see shrinkwrap licenses tested in court. Unfortunately, no one in the movie or music industry is will to risk it. Until such a time as it is proven in court that shrinkwrap licenses are legally binding, I would like to fault on the side of first sale and fair use.
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Better put:
Company A bought a non-transferable license for Autodesk software.
Company A then gave away that software when they stopped using it.
Guy B picked up the software and then sold it.
While Guy B never agreed to the license, company A did and that superceded guy B's right to sell the software on eBay.
That does not apply in this case as the movie has not been redeemed and no one has agreed to a non-transferable license. This is nothing more than one person saying "I don't want to use this service I have not signed up for. You can purchase my right to use it for $5".
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please cite the case law that states that an unredeemed code for a service for which the person transferring the code has never signed up for and never plans to sign up for is a non-transferable license.
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
I know you don't understand this, but think of it this way. Let's say you buy a bedding set. You like the comforter, the sheets but not the sham. You have a right to separate out the sham from the rest of the package and sell or give it away. Same here.
Or let's say you buy a variety pack of potato chips. You don't like one particular flavor so you give or sell the flavor you don't like.
Or in this case, someone bought a combo pack of a movie and sold off the part they don't like and will never use. It is dead weight to them. It is transferable, both physically and legally.
Please, cite the case law that states it is not legal to do this. I will wait for you, although I know I will be waiting for quite some time as you will ignore this request for an actual legal citation.
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Scope Creep
Without some sort of license that someone must agree to, then you can't even claim it as a violation of a license.
On the post: Dropbox Adds Key Feature That Supposedly Made Megaupload Illegal: Link To Download
Re:
On the post: Networks Go After Barry Diller Personally For The Insult Of Investing In Aereo
Re:
When you tapdance within the confines of fair use, don't be shocked if you get sued by some copyright maximilist.
I know you copyright maximilists think that anything fair use is the same thing as copyright infringement, but there is a huge difference.
On the post: Facebook Buys Most Of The AOL Patents From Microsoft That It Bought Just Weeks Ago
Re:
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re:
I think you are a bit confused here. Violating a Terms of Service is not copyright infringement. Secondly, the person selling the code has not redeemed the code, has never agreed to the terms of the "license" and is thus not liable for violating it. However, even if they did, that is not Copyright infringement.
The idea of UV is a system to allow you to move your legally paid for content from device to device, just as you freetardian types have been whining about for years.
Nothing wrong with the idea of UV. The problem lies in the implementation. They claim you are getting a digital copy, but all the limitations and blockades to using it in a convenient way makes the service useless for the informed consumer.
But you can see the issue right away, as some people think of it as multiple copies they can just sell for a profit.
What profit? The guy bought a $30 Bluray/DVD/UV combo pack and sold the UV code for $5. There is no profit gained. He is still out $25.
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: ebay & "free" downloads
On the post: To Read All Of The Privacy Policies You Encounter, You'd Need To Take A Month Off From Work Each Year
Re: Re:
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re:
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Public Perception
On the post: Josh In CharlotteNC’s Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
Amazon has stepped in and is replacing them. The reaction of the publishing industry was to collude with one another and force Amazon to do it their way. Has it slowed down Amazon? Sure, but they are still well on their way to replacing the publishing industry. Other digital publishing services are taking over the market as well.
On the post: Hollywood Still Trying To Kill The Golden Netflix Goose
Re: DVDs are for me
1) Because I have kids and Netflix streaming has a whole lot of really great kids shows and movies that I am happy for them to watch.
2) There are a lot of television shows available for it that my Wife and I enjoy watching that we can't get otherwise. We don't always know which show we will feel like watching each night and would hate to be locked in to a particular show via DVD if we were not in the mood.
3) The convenience of Redbox made the need for the DVD side pointless. At 1 DVD at a timeI would have to get 8 or more DVDs a month to be cheaper than Redbox, but we only watched 1 a week at most. So the switch was a net gain for my family.
On the post: Hollywood Still Trying To Kill The Golden Netflix Goose
Re: Re: Re:
The problem seems to be on the side of the studios and networks which are collectively asking for way more than Netflix earns in revenue. Kind of like how the music labels tried to kill internet radio.
Next >>