What does ownership means in the digital era?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Hard drives crash as well. My point is that if you lose the music, you can't go to the content provider and say "give me a new one for free because I lost my old one" - some providers may allow you to do it, but that's their choice.

Well, for those content providers who do not want to provide you with a copy for the cost of physical copy + shipping, there is even better alternative. You could go to thepiratebay, and download a copy from there. You already paid for this content, and there is no need to pay twice.

Quote

Actually, you can get a design patent, but you can also get a copyright on the design (as well as a trademark) - but I was referring to the internal workings of the Zippo as making a copy of it - that would be a patent issue.

I meant exact replication, and this comparison meant to address DSE's tangible/non-tangible question, as a way to show that there is no real difference in term of copyright law. Of course creating just another lighter would not violate copyright, and most likely not violate any patents as well. Same is writing your own song. However if you copy a song written by someone else, or copy a design done by someone else, it is the same copyright - even though the first thing is non-tangible and the second is. The only significant difference is that it is much easier to a layman to make a copy of a song than a copy of Zippo, but this doesn't mean the song is less or more protected by the copyright law.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

While that is a way around it, it doesn't send as much of a message as not buying a companies products altogether if you don't like their business practices. Why support them at all?

I agree, and I generally do not buy DRM products for my personal consumption. Those two I got as gifts.

iPhone is also a different case from Wii. It is not free (in terms of "free speech, not free beer"), this is true, but it's not DRM device either. Once jailbroken, you could do pretty much everything with it, and as long as you stay out of iTunes (which in my opinion everyone should do - buy music on www.mp3sparks.com as it's non-DRM and very cheap), it's good enough to me.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[DSE 5]

Quote

What's the difference between enforce and catch? How can you enforce something if you can't catch them?

How is it easy to enforce against friends copying back and forth MP3's and DVD's if they aren't doing it via the Internet?

Unless everything non public domain becomes DRM (shudder) it's not possible.

I do "catch" your point that unless someone is caught, the law can't be enforced, but if enough illegal actions are not being caught, then more aggressive means of protecting the content will be undertaken (Anyone remember the BMG rootkit fiasco?)

Bear in mind, there are two similar yet very different discussions here.

"Catching" is easier and will become easier because of DRM in forms that aren't yet in heavy use (and may never be), but there are newer forms of DRM coming up that aren't OS or device based. Serialization of files is just one example. They'll be hassles too, but putting in to Marg's "1984" terms....
When you wanted to copy a friend's Van Halen album, you had to go over to his house with your cassette recorder or he brought the record to you. It was a real-time process, and you used a cassette that was lesser in quality than the original LP was. But at least you had a copy. More importantly, at *that* time, artists were partially compensated for that illegal action due to royalties embedded in the sale of blank cassettes. For a very brief period of time, blank CD's had this embedded compensation too, but then it was easily demonstrated that CD's served a larger, greater purpose than copyright violation. Those embedded royalties no longer exist.
Let's entirely put aside mom/pop/Room 101 buddies copying MP3's and DVDs for a moment. That's a tiny part of the picture.

For the moment, no artist, artist rights organization, or publishers organization is very concerned about you giving me a copy of the new AC/DC recording. Pennies add up, but it's the wholesale redistribution that has them fired up and taking action (as it should). Look at Amazon. One of the world's largest on-line distributors and they got their ass handed to them in a hat because they weren't paying attention. Perhaps some thought policing would have been of benefit to them? BTW, this has happened to Apple at least three times I'm aware of, and so that means it's probably happened 30 or 300 times....

Bringing up Amazon's EULA is a waste of time. Amazon unwittingly violated the law. They have no choice but to correct their violation. As mentioned earlier, I disagree with how they corrected their mistake, but regardless of "how" they did it, they _had_ to correct their mistake. No option.

Quote

Then why anyone would purchase such a book, if you can get it from the library for free on similar (actually even better) terms?

Is this a serious question? Why buy a car vs using public transportation? Why have a cell phone vs using pay phones? Why have an iPod vs going to a bar to hear music? Why have cable vs watching whatever is on the "big three?" Why go to Mickey D's vs cooking lunch in your own home? ....the list is lengthy and all effectively have the same primary answer. Convenience. Cost plays a small role, but convenience is a huge deal to most humans.

Quote

Well, no. I do own my music. I just do not own copyright on it, which means that for example I cannot make copies of it and give them to my friends. It is, however, no different than I own my Zippo - I also do not own copyright on it, and cannot make copies of it and give them to my friends.

You're quite incorrect in this assumption (aside from mixing copyright and patents) but there are just some things not worth trying to explain. But the earth isn't flat...

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


One thing I still find knee-slapping hilarious in this discussion within this community is that someone may be pissed about this happening via a Kindle, but in the very same breath are still using copyrighted media in their skydiving videos posted online or in student/tandem DVDs and defending their right to do so. ("I bought the CD so it must be OK")

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You're talking about a completely different case here, aren't you? If you consider it relevant, could you please explain?

I'm not talking about any case in point, it's merely an argument of intellectual blindness and intentional stupidity, IMO. In fact, no such case law exists with regard to the above discussion. The lack of case law does not invalidate the argument. Most anyone not living under a rock for the past 20 years is aware that using copyrighted music for tandem (and other similar videos) is illegal. Both criminal and civil.


Sort of back to point...the 'mom/pop' violators we see being prosecuted these days are merely examples to remind people of the laws and consequences. Until the mass copying (like skydiving DVDs and trunk sales) is stopped....mom n' pops, jr. high school kids won't be much of a focus unless it's really eggregious and overt demonstration of theft (like the stupid soccer mom that bragged about uploads/downloads on television). Then there was the Native American woman (who still represents the biggest personal fine levied against an individual who was coincidentally, defended by a member of the Dropzone.com community) that also made a little too much noise about what she was up to, and how much she'd been uploading.

What is important for society to (at some point) recognize is that creative ideas are in perpetuity, the property of the creator of that creative work. At no point can an artist sign away their rights to creative works (outside of WFH, but that's another discussion), because the law recognizes that as artists, we sometimes/usually need to be protected from ourselves.
For example, Prof. John Kallend wrote an excellent treatise on the 45 degree rule and provides his creative and technical work as a no-cost benefit to the community at large. Whatever his motivations for doing so may be, the creative aspects of that work are forever his, and he may "recall" or rescind his permissions for the free use of his works, at _any_ point in time. Because the creative aspect of his work is his, and his alone, for at least 70 years following his passing. As a community, we're permitted (licensed) to use and benefit from his works for as long as he chooses to allow us to. Just say for example, one day he chooses to no longer make his PowerPoint and data available to people to use without cost, there would be some small rumbling, maybe a name called, but for the most part, this community would probably defend his right to protect and collect some form of revenue for his efforts. We'd feel that way, because we know him, he contributes to the community, and darn it all, folks just like him.

It's when the scope becomes larger that folks lose that "personalized" view and start to think possessively of those things that "benefit" their lives. It's easy to depersonalize the theft of a George Orwell book for example, because;
-who here was a bowling buddy with Orwell?
-a common argument is "he's already made enough money from his books, what's it hurt if one or two copies get stolen?"
-It was electronic theft, no actual dollars were involved in the printing, distribution, advertisement, etc of the book, right? So it's harmless?

My fear is that the copyright picture is going to become a lot more ugly before it gets better, and the burden on the consumer and developers will continue to be a rollercoaster ride of too much/too little over the next coming years before technology allows it to stabilize and function with some form of common sense. If the answer were easy, then we'd already have it. What we currently have are a couple dozen miserable failures in protection schemes that have only served to hurt all parties involved.

And there will *always* be hacks. The question is when do we reach a balance point that the hack is more trouble than accessing the content is worth? I've quit using any production software that uses PACE anti-piracy protection, because it's too big a hassle.

Curiously enough, Apple's "Cocktail" was presented today as a means of selling more music/album pieces/content/extras. What newspeak aren't telling you is that there are indeed DRM components in the mix....
It's gonna be a long time til the fat lady sings on this discussion. Over 300 years of old laws, old concepts, and 30 years of new technologies to somehow reconcile.

Meanwhile, Big Brother is watching.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

It was electronic theft, no actual dollars were involved in the printing, distribution, advertisement, etc of the book, right? So it's harmless?

This is really the most valid point. In the "old days" there were hard copies: CD's, DVD's, tapes, etc. With hard copies you have production costs plus as with any physical item you have to balance supply/demand as you want to make sure you have enough but don't want to have too many. Plus you have to ship them all over, maybe pay for a promotional endcap at the stores, etc. there was quite a bit of risk.

When selling a digital copy, you don't have all of that. Once the initial cost of the infrastructure to serve all of your files being sold is paid for your distribution costs drop practically to zero and becomes almost pure profit for both the creators and the Internet distributor.

It's this easiness to share that really devalues all the content. But I don't think the solution is to make it "harder" again. Obviously, companies will charge what the market will bear ($0.99 a file on iTunes), but at some point they either have to accept those losses due to piracy (a large portion of those who copy wouldn't buy anyways), perhaps adjust their pricing or pricing model, or perhaps start cutting out the large recording, duplication, and shipping industries that they no longer need on this digital distribution age. If they still want the have items in stores, add the costs to those versions only.

DRM is more for the RIAA and other groups than for the actual content creators. It's there way of trying to convince creators "You still need us" when in reality, they really no longer do.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I do "catch" your point that unless someone is caught, the law can't be enforced, but if enough illegal actions are not being caught, then more aggressive means of protecting the content will be undertaken (Anyone remember the BMG rootkit fiasco?)

There is basically nothing which could be done to protect the content completely. Even a pretty advanced Blue-Ray content encryption system was broken pretty fast, and it is not even that popular yet. Sure it requires a lot of skill and experience, but once it is done, usually a software is written and uploaded to some server in Europe which rightfully ignores DMCA takedown requests. At this moment the labels gather together, invent a new encryption scheme, and everything goes on the next round.

Quote

Bringing up Amazon's EULA is a waste of time. Amazon unwittingly violated the law. They have no choice but to correct their violation.

What I am trying to say that in attempt to fix it they overstepped their boundaries. For example, if I sell you an illegal copy of Windows and get sued for that, no court would forgive me or reduce the penalties if I "correct" the violation by breaking into your house and stealing this illegal CD. In fact I believe it would be an added, separate offense.

Quote

Is this a serious question? Why buy a car vs using public transportation? Why have a cell phone vs using pay phones?

Look on the quoted example. I do not know why would one buy a car if the car manufacture could take it away any time they wish. I wouldn't buy a cell phone if the operator could take my phone away if they want to. This is not buying, this is basically renting.

Quote

You're quite incorrect in this assumption (aside from mixing copyright and patents) but there are just some things not worth trying to explain.

Why?

Quote

Most anyone not living under a rock for the past 20 years is aware that using copyrighted music for tandem (and other similar videos) is illegal. Both criminal and civil.

So how does it related to Amazon removing legally purchased content from the user machines? I fail to see any connections here.

Quote

And there will *always* be hacks. The question is when do we reach a balance point that the hack is more trouble than accessing the content is worth? I've quit using any production software that uses PACE anti-piracy protection, because it's too big a hassle.

Agree. We're already at the point when by downloading a game from torrent a person would be in BETTER position than the one who actually bought it, as the downloaded game has all those anti-piracy features removed, and does not stupid things like requiring Internet connection to prove you're a legitimate owner exactly at the time when you don't have it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[nerdgirl 0]

DSE brought up, however inadvertently perhaps, another intersection of technology and ownership of ideas (w/ref to [kallend]’s making available the 45-sec rule briefing he developed, arguably his intellectual property).

In the fast changing world of social networking via ICTs, what constitutes plagiarism?

Is stealing 140 characters from someone else and repeating those verbatim without credit on your Twitter feed plagiarism? Is 140 characters intellectual property?

A friend of mine recently wrote a short piece on the subject, “Bantamweight Publishing in an Easily Plagiarised World,” in which he calls it a “lawless frontier territory.”

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

DSE brought up, however inadvertently perhaps, another intersection of technology and ownership of ideas (w/ref to [kallend]’s making available the 45-sec rule briefing he developed, arguably his intellectual property).

In the fast changing world of social networking via ICTs, what constitutes plagiarism?

Is stealing 140 characters from someone else and repeating those verbatim without credit on your Twitter feed plagiarism? Is 140 characters intellectual property?

A friend of mine recently wrote a short piece on the subject, “Bantamweight Publishing in an Easily Plagiarised World,” in which he calls it a “lawless frontier territory.”

/Marg

140 characters can be IP - there are trademarks that are much shorter than that!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Is stealing 140 characters from someone else and repeating those verbatim without credit on your Twitter feed plagiarism?

It is definitely plagiarism. However it's not necessary copyright violation.
It depends on a lot of things.

Quote

Is 140 characters intellectual property?

Of course. Most trademarks are much smaller; slogans like "Got milk?" could also be trademarked.

Quote

A friend of mine recently wrote a short piece on the subject, “Bantamweight Publishing in an Easily Plagiarised World,” in which he calls it a “lawless frontier territory.”

Interesting article. I'd add that enforcement of non-commercial copyright violation is generally pretty useless, and leads to public outrage and following consequences (like J. Tannenbaum trial, where Prof. Nelson is arguing that "statutory damages" defined in U.S. Copyright Act are "cruel and unusual punishment", because the fines are much disproportional comparing to what the content worth).

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Bolas 5]

The real question is if you post a plagiarised comment in a blog, tweet, on FB, etc. Is the site owner somehow liable?

On the flip side, if you posted an original comment on one of those sites, do you "own" it or do they? Can they take that comment and use it without compensating you?

Hopefully it doesn't work for the hoster both ways, but have a feeling it might.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The real question is if you post a plagiarised comment in a blog, tweet, on FB, etc. Is the site owner somehow liable?

No, the site owner is not liable unless they received DMCA takedown notice, and failed to follow the procedure established by law.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID125

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[nigel99 619]

Quote

The real question is if you post a plagiarised comment in a blog, tweet, on FB, etc. Is the site owner somehow liable?

On the flip side, if you posted an original comment on one of those sites, do you "own" it or do they? Can they take that comment and use it without compensating you?

Hopefully it doesn't work for the hoster both ways, but have a feeling it might.

I think in most cases it is in the websites terms of service and can vary.

Quote

By publishing or submitting any content including, articles, stories, postings and photographs to any part of Dropzone.com you give permission that such content may be used at the sole discretion of Dropzone.com anywhere else on the site, for any purpose, in its original or edited form, at any time in the future. Content will not be sold without permission of the original author or owner.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[georgerussia 0]

So class-action lawsuit against Amazon is started.

And while I typically dislike class action lawsuits, hopefully this one will teach Amazon and other content provider a valuable lesson:


It is important to set a precedent, Edelson said, as "technology companies increasingly feel that because they have the ability to access people's personal property, they have the right to do so" even though that is "100 per cent contrary to the laws of this country."

I can't agree more.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[DSE 5]

Quote

So class-action lawsuit against Amazon is started.

And while I typically dislike class action lawsuits, hopefully this one will teach Amazon and other content provider a valuable lesson:


It is important to set a precedent, Edelson said, as "technology companies increasingly feel that because they have the ability to access people's personal property, they have the right to do so" even though that is "100 per cent contrary to the laws of this country."

I can't agree more.

I couldn't agree more either. The problem is believing that the people that bought a license to read "Animal Farm" or "1984" had any ownership (implied as personal property) in any manuscript nor copyrighted work in the first place. I don't believe they did, and I'll wager the courts will find the same thing.
Tenenbaum sure as shit found out this afternoon that he doesn't own the songs he thought he did. If I could have jumped, I'd have jumped for joy at that one. No one could have deserved it more than he. A PhD candidate from Boston University....he was no dumbass. And he had it coming.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I couldn't agree more either. The problem is believing that the people that bought a license to read "Animal Farm" or "1984" had any ownership (implied as personal property) in any manuscript nor copyrighted work in the first place. I don't believe they did, and I'll wager the courts will find the same thing.

Nobody says by buying the book they own copyright. In fact a paperback book comes with the same "license to read". However, as it was said before multiple times, the fact the bookstore sold the bootlegged copy of a book does not give them permission to illegally break in your book storage and remove it. It does not matter whether the book is digital or paperback.

Quote

Tenenbaum sure as shit found out this afternoon that he doesn't own the songs he thought he did. If I could have jumped, I'd have jumped for joy at that one.

Too early, I would say. The issue in that trial is not whether Tenenbaum violated copyright law - it is whether statutory damages provided by it are reasonable punishment, or "cruel and unusual". A couple more 1M verdicts for downloading of 20 songs 0.99 each, and it's very likely the Congress amends the law, or Supreme Court struck down statutory damages as "cruel and unusual".

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

I couldn't agree more either. The problem is believing that the people that bought a license to read "Animal Farm" or "1984" had any ownership (implied as personal property) in any manuscript nor copyrighted work in the first place. I don't believe they did, and I'll wager the courts will find the same thing.

Nobody says by buying the book they own copyright. In fact a paperback book comes with the same "license to read". However, as it was said before multiple times, the fact the bookstore sold the bootlegged copy of a book does not give them permission to illegally break in your book storage and remove it. It does not matter whether the book is digital or paperback.

Quote

Tenenbaum sure as shit found out this afternoon that he doesn't own the songs he thought he did. If I could have jumped, I'd have jumped for joy at that one.

Too early, I would say. The issue in that trial is not whether Tenenbaum violated copyright law - it is whether statutory damages provided by it are reasonable punishment, or "cruel and unusual". A couple more 1M verdicts for downloading of 20 songs 0.99 each, and it's very likely the Congress amends the law, or Supreme Court struck down statutory damages as "cruel and unusual".

Since you insist on applying analog realities to IP (where they actually don't belong, and do not bear much relevance in the creation of laws and IP rights) I'll try another tack....
Amazon sold stolen goods. Plain and simple.
If you own a pawnshop and receive stolen goods, the police have every right to retrieve those stolen goods and return them to the original owner without compensation to the pawnshop.
If you as a private citizen receive stolen goods, the same rule applies; the stolen property can be taken from you and returned to the original owner.
In this example, Amazon sold stolen goods and had they not retrieved the illegal copies of the books (analog or digital), then Amazon could likely be found guilty of aiding and abetting.
Again, I'll say Amazon handled it badly, but they in fact, had to handle it somehow. Had they been smart enough to consult you, me, or Marg...maybe they'd have less of an issue and no lawsuits being filed against them. The "Dog ate my homework" action will likely never see court, and if it does, I'll bet the court's response is "too bad, so sad, sucks to be you." If you had a stolen university book that was filled with your personal sticky notes and the original owner retrieved it either through legal or illegal means, you'd be just as screwed as the Plaintiff is, and would probably recover just as much as he won't.

As a very unrelated experience tonight, I watched a waitress get pissed off at a customer for not tipping her a coupla bucks. How dare a lowly waitress be pissed off that she didn't get her 5.00 tip but an artist should be expected to not be remunerated in any way. After all, the waitress just hands over food. An artist, author, musician enriches our lives, society, culture, and influences the very quality of every moment of our lives. The sad thing is that I'm sure a large component of this community would support the waitress receiving her tip before they'd support assuring that creatives receive compensation for their hard works.
I've wondered before, and wonder again....how many people who toss opinions in this discussion have ever once registered a copyrighted work? Not having registered one certainly doesn't nullify one's right to an opinion, but having never registered a copyrightable Work would likely tend to create an uninformed opinion. Last I checked, I've got around 500 registered copyrights. And most of my work can be found on Pirate Bay (and iTunes, for those that are honest). Please buy my music and my books, I have high medical bills to pay. I'm a better writer, producer, and musician than I am a skydiver. good skydivers don't drop toggles, but good writers can drop pencils.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Since you insist on applying analog realities to IP (where they actually don't belong, and do not bear much relevance in the creation of laws and IP rights) I'll try another tack....
Amazon sold stolen goods. Plain and simple.

I've actually provided a very relevant example with a paperback book. If you do not agree, could you please explain why?

Quote

If you own a pawnshop and receive stolen goods, the police have every right to retrieve those stolen goods and return them to the original owner without compensation to the pawnshop.
If you as a private citizen receive stolen goods, the same rule applies; the stolen property can be taken from you and returned to the original owner.

Yes, the property could be taken from you, but there is a legal procedure which has to be followed BEFORE the property is taken. Your analogy would be correct if the court ordered Amazon to destroy the bootlegged copies on customer devices.

So if a pawn shop owner from your example learned that the goods he sold were stolen, and he broke into the buyers' houses and stole the goods back, you would really consider this situation normal?

Also please understand that we do not know yet whether the book in question was really added to the Amazon bookstore illegally. So far we only hear Amazon version, and I see no reason to trust them completely.

Quote

In this example, Amazon sold stolen goods and had they not retrieved the illegal copies of the books (analog or digital), then Amazon could likely be found guilty of aiding and abetting.

No, they're guilty in illegally distributing copyrighted work. But - surprise! - even after they remove it from user devices, they are STILL guilty of illegally distributing copyrighted work! They might lower the actual damages, but RIAA etc usually sue for statutory damages, so the actual damages are irrelevant, and the penalty is still there.

Quote

If you had a stolen university book that was filled with your personal sticky notes and the original owner retrieved it either through legal or illegal means, you'd be just as screwed as the Plaintiff is, and would probably recover just as much as he won't.

And again you're bringing yet another irrelevant example. Do you see that it completely excludes Amazon from the picture, while in fact the key topic we discuss is Amazon action?

Quote

An artist, author, musician enriches our lives, society, culture, and influences the very quality of every moment of our lives.

Not all of them, unfortunately. I've got personal impression that the longer the copyright becomes, the more produced crap we see, which is only there to benefit an artist, and not the society as a whole. And one of the reasons the copyright law was invented is for society benefits.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Bolas 5]

Quote

no lawsuits being filed against them. The "Dog ate my homework" action will likely never see court, and if it does, I'll bet the court's response is "too bad, so sad, sucks to be you."

It will definitely not see court or a judges ruling.

* Amazon doesn't want it as it could set the wrong legal precedent depending on the judge.
* The lawyers for the "victims" don't want it as they just want the settlement money they will be paid to just go away.

This is about $$$, not justice.

Besides, I'm sure Amazon has legal insurance anyways for items such as this. Just like the USPA has.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[georgerussia 0]

(related to Tenenbaum's verdict): now that is really funny!

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[1969912 0]

Quote

(related to Tenenbaum's verdict): now that is really funny!

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[labrys 0]

Quote

The reason for this is if they were to actually sell the software, they'd have to include the source code. ***

I can't imagine where you got that idea. A software developer can easily sell you complete ownership of a binary file without having to provide source. Some still choose to just sell you the right to only use the binary. In this way they protect themselves from having you reverse engineer back to the source and claim that it was your right to do so because you owned the thing. They are closing a loop hole, not acting under duress to give you source.

I suspect that you might be confusing open source licensing agreements with business and legal defenses. It's like saying that KFC is obliged to give you their secret recipe because you bought a piece of chicken.

Owned by Remi #?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I can't imagine where you got that idea. A software developer can easily sell you complete ownership of a binary file without having to provide source.

This was probably caused by confusion between "sell the license" vs "sell the software", and my understanding is that by "selling the software" Bolas meant selling the exclusive rights for the software, and it would be very unusual to get exclusive rights, but didn't get the source. Of course, every situation has exception, and I know at least one of them - the whole X-Com game series were sold this way - apparently the source code was lost completely, so the buyer only got the binary, together with the title and appropriate rights.

Quote

Some still choose to just sell you the right to only use the binary. In this way they protect themselves from having you reverse engineer back to the source and claim that it was your right to do so because you owned the thing.

As a person who has first-hand experience in reverse engineering, I could tell you it's pretty impossible if the program was written in any high-level language and is not tiny. Even if someone does it - which takes A LOT of time - the difference between the source code and reverse-engineered source code will be so dramatic that one could actually claim he wrote the whole thing, and this claim is likely to stand the source code level analysis.

Quote

I suspect that you might be confusing open source licensing agreements with business and legal defenses. It's like saying that KFC is obliged to give you their secret recipe because you bought a piece of chicken.

I think he's making a point similar to "leasing software" (buying a piece of chicken in KFC) vs "buying software" (buying the whole franchise). Of course in the later case they still might not be obliged to give you the recipe - but it would be foolish not to add this requirement into the purchase contract.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[labrys 0]

Quote

As a person who has first-hand experience in reverse engineering, I could tell you it's pretty impossible if the program was written in any high-level language and is not tiny.

Don't confuse experience with skill.

Owned by Remi #?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Don't confuse experience with skill.

Well, here it depends on how much experience one has doing that. Skills required are actually pretty basic (on my scale); the most important skill is patience.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *