«

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11...-own-copyright

Does this mean if I buy a print of a photo, or a book with a print of
a photo in it, it still belongs to the photog?

On 08/11/2012 8:02 PM, RichA wrote:
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11...-own-copyright
>
> Does this mean if I buy a print of a photo, or a book with a print of
> a photo in it, it still belongs to the photog?
>
I depends on the rights that were negotiated with the publisher.

On 11/8/2012 5:02 PM, RichA wrote:
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11...-own-copyright
>
> Does this mean if I buy a print of a photo, or a book with a print of
> a photo in it, it still belongs to the photog?
>

I think it means if you buy a print of a photo, the print itself belongs
to you (er... maybe), which you can use as you see fit (er... maybe),
but the photo itself still belongs to the photographer (no maybe about
it). However .... you can't resell nor give the print away to another
party without the approval (payment) of the owner (or agent) of the
Intellectual Property.

Look at it this way. You bought Intellectual Property but you don't own
it although you bought it.

There seems to be a similar movement in the U.S. regarding used books
purchased from a used book store.

| Look at it this way. You bought Intellectual Property but you don't own
| it although you bought it.
|
| There seems to be a similar movement in the U.S. regarding used books
| purchased from a used book store.

Not exactly. There's a case in the Supreme Court
right now in which book publishers are trying to stop
the resale of books that were bought in a foreign
country:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...nership-means/

It's an interesting case that's addressing whether
companies have a right to have their exploitation
of differing markets protected. But the possible
ramifications are extensive. (And well explained
at the above link.)

Hollywood and publishers are very much focused
on trying to protect copyrighted material while
using the unique issues of digital media in an
attempted land grab. But they haven't pulled that
off yet. First sale rights (that one owns the copy
and can do anything with it except make more
copies) was established in a 1909 court case pitting
publishers against Macy's, which was reselling used
books. It would take a lot to reverse that.

But maybe it won't matter so much. Apple gets
away with stealing first sale rights on
digital music and Amazon is doing the same with
digital books. If there's a court case those companies
can just say that the customers agreed to the terms.
The people who are sucker enough to pay full price
for only the right to use the media on a limited number
of devices are digging their own graves.
(Remember the rumor recently about Bruse Willis?
Supposedly he was going to sue Apple for the right
to give his music collection to his kids. It turned out
to be just a rumor, but I would think it must have
got a lot of dollar-a-song shoppers to thinking about
how much money they've spent with nothing to show
for it.)

On 11/8/2012 6:02 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> | Look at it this way. You bought Intellectual Property but you don't own
> | it although you bought it.
> |
> | There seems to be a similar movement in the U.S. regarding used books
> | purchased from a used book store.
>
> Not exactly. There's a case in the Supreme Court
> right now in which book publishers are trying to stop
> the resale of books that were bought in a foreign
> country:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...nership-means/
>
> It's an interesting case that's addressing whether
> companies have a right to have their exploitation
> of differing markets protected. But the possible
> ramifications are extensive. (And well explained
> at the above link.)
>
> Hollywood and publishers are very much focused
> on trying to protect copyrighted material while
> using the unique issues of digital media in an
> attempted land grab. But they haven't pulled that
> off yet. First sale rights (that one owns the copy
> and can do anything with it except make more
> copies) was established in a 1909 court case pitting
> publishers against Macy's, which was reselling used
> books. It would take a lot to reverse that.
>
> But maybe it won't matter so much. Apple gets
> away with stealing first sale rights on
> digital music and Amazon is doing the same with
> digital books. If there's a court case those companies
> can just say that the customers agreed to the terms.
> The people who are sucker enough to pay full price
> for only the right to use the media on a limited number
> of devices are digging their own graves.
> (Remember the rumor recently about Bruse Willis?
> Supposedly he was going to sue Apple for the right
> to give his music collection to his kids. It turned out
> to be just a rumor, but I would think it must have
> got a lot of dollar-a-song shoppers to thinking about
> how much money they've spent with nothing to show
> for it.)
>
>

What the heck, we buy software which we don't own which sometimes even
has a number of limited uses.

I wonder!!!

I have a favored vehicle, my Ford truck. I bought it but Ford owns the
detail drawings of the design. The design drawings may not need to be
patented but they surely can be considered as being Intellectual
Property. Do you think there will come a day when I can neither trade,
sell my truck, or give my truck to a family member because Ford owns the
Intellectual Property rights?

| What the heck, we buy software which we don't own which sometimes even
| has a number of limited uses.
|
| I wonder!!!

Yes. The case could be made that Microsoft has
broken the law by extorting multiple license payments
when someone buys a new PC or has to buy a new
disk. They claim software is intellectual property but
legally claim that it's licensed to an inanimate
object -- the motherboard! That's a trick on the level
of Saturday morning cartoons.

It seems to be a simple case of companies like MS,
Adobe, etc. having more lawyers and lobbyists than
anyone who cares to oppose them. Also, they have a
valid claim in trying to prevent the spread of illegal
digital copies. So their claims have never been tested.
And they cleverly took a "passive aggressive" approach
that serves to mute the issue: Instead of legally enforcing
their claims they've rigged their software for limited
functionality. You buy a PC and get no disk anymore.
The OS installed is locked to a code in the BIOS. If you
try to copy it to a new PC it doesn't work. Then MS
threatens PC makers who dare to sell a PC without Windows.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...9286228,00.htm

That's a non-confrontive way of forcing you to
buy a software license with every PC or major
repair. (Not to single out MS.)

| I have a favored vehicle, my Ford truck. I bought it but Ford owns the
| detail drawings of the design. The design drawings may not need to be
| patented but they surely can be considered as being Intellectual
| Property. Do you think there will come a day when I can neither trade,
| sell my truck, or give my truck to a family member because Ford owns the
| Intellectual Property rights?
|

That's one of the issues being talked about in the
Supreme Court case: If intellectual property from
offshore sources can't be resold then the software
in foreign cars/trucks would qualify those for
protection. I have a Toyota pickup. I *love* the
quality (my last truck lasted 18 years and 239,000
miles), but Toyota is abusive to their customers.
They charge me the mechanic's markup if I buy parts
from them. I have no doubt they'd charge me for the
right to resell if given the chance.

The implication is that a lot of manufacturing might
then be moved offshore and products could be designed
to incorporate some kind of intellectual property. Something
similar has already occurred in a case of Costco vs Omega
watches, where the watch company put a small picture
on the back of their watches, called it intellectual property,
then sued Costco for reselling imported watches:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi...cheap-watches/

Apparently that case didn't set an official precedent,
though Omega won and the SC let that decision stand.
I suppose that if Wiley wins you'll probably be able to
still sell your Ford... for awhile. Public opinion and common
sense would have to be altered before you'd be blocked
from doing that. First it would start with resale of books
and DVDs being banned. Then maybe it would move
to hardware by Apple demanding control over the i* resale
market.... That doesn't seem so farfetched, given that
they already control much of how their products can be
used. It might be a few years before you'd have to
make a deal with an Authorized Ford Transfer Depot before
you're allowed to buy a new car.

On 11/9/2012 6:12 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> | What the heck, we buy software which we don't own which sometimes even
> | has a number of limited uses.
> |
> | I wonder!!!
>
> Yes. The case could be made that Microsoft has
> broken the law by extorting multiple license payments
> when someone buys a new PC or has to buy a new
> disk. They claim software is intellectual property but
> legally claim that it's licensed to an inanimate
> object -- the motherboard! That's a trick on the level
> of Saturday morning cartoons.
>
> It seems to be a simple case of companies like MS,
> Adobe, etc. having more lawyers and lobbyists than
> anyone who cares to oppose them. Also, they have a
> valid claim in trying to prevent the spread of illegal
> digital copies. So their claims have never been tested.
> And they cleverly took a "passive aggressive" approach
> that serves to mute the issue: Instead of legally enforcing
> their claims they've rigged their software for limited
> functionality. You buy a PC and get no disk anymore.
> The OS installed is locked to a code in the BIOS. If you
> try to copy it to a new PC it doesn't work. Then MS
> threatens PC makers who dare to sell a PC without Windows.
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...9286228,00.htm
>
> That's a non-confrontive way of forcing you to
> buy a software license with every PC or major
> repair. (Not to single out MS.)
>
> | I have a favored vehicle, my Ford truck. I bought it but Ford owns the
> | detail drawings of the design. The design drawings may not need to be
> | patented but they surely can be considered as being Intellectual
> | Property. Do you think there will come a day when I can neither trade,
> | sell my truck, or give my truck to a family member because Ford owns the
> | Intellectual Property rights?
> |
>
> That's one of the issues being talked about in the
> Supreme Court case: If intellectual property from
> offshore sources can't be resold then the software
> in foreign cars/trucks would qualify those for
> protection. I have a Toyota pickup. I *love* the
> quality (my last truck lasted 18 years and 239,000
> miles), but Toyota is abusive to their customers.
> They charge me the mechanic's markup if I buy parts
> from them. I have no doubt they'd charge me for the
> right to resell if given the chance.
>
> The implication is that a lot of manufacturing might
> then be moved offshore and products could be designed
> to incorporate some kind of intellectual property. Something
> similar has already occurred in a case of Costco vs Omega
> watches, where the watch company put a small picture
> on the back of their watches, called it intellectual property,
> then sued Costco for reselling imported watches:
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi...cheap-watches/
>
> Apparently that case didn't set an official precedent,
> though Omega won and the SC let that decision stand.
> I suppose that if Wiley wins you'll probably be able to
> still sell your Ford... for awhile. Public opinion and common
> sense would have to be altered before you'd be blocked
> from doing that. First it would start with resale of books
> and DVDs being banned. Then maybe it would move
> to hardware by Apple demanding control over the i* resale
> market.... That doesn't seem so farfetched, given that
> they already control much of how their products can be
> used. It might be a few years before you'd have to
> make a deal with an Authorized Ford Transfer Depot before
> you're allowed to buy a new car.
>
>

Whew, that's a lot to digest.

I'm not a member of the NACC but I do have an amateur's interest in
Horological devices.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:42:37 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
wrote:
: On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:12:34 -0500, "Mayayana"
: <> wrote:
:
: >| What the heck, we buy software which we don't own which sometimes even
: >| has a number of limited uses.
: >|
: >| I wonder!!!
: >
: > Yes. The case could be made that Microsoft has broken the law by
: >extorting multiple license payments when someone buys a new PC or
: >has to buy a new disk. They claim software is intellectual property
: >but legally claim that it's licensed to an inanimate object -- the
: >motherboard! That's a trick on the level of Saturday morning cartoons.
:
: Yet, here in New Zealand, I've succeeded in buying an installable copy
: of Windows XP on a CD for NZ$25. It was a backup for the copy installed
: on my machine from new. The CD came complete with instructions about how
: to install and unlock it if I ever needed to do so.

I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't sound like such a great deal to
me. We bought a lot of Dell PCs and servers in the XP days, and each came with
a re-installation CD that allowed you to rebuild the OS from scratch.
Moreover, that CD would work on any Dell computer; and although it came with a
product code, I can't recall ever being prompted for it. And I installed XP on
a LOT of computers.

Installation of the various versions of Windows Server 2003 worked pretty much
the same way.

Bob

On 11/9/2012 1:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:12:34 -0500, "Mayayana"
> <> wrote:
>
>> | What the heck, we buy software which we don't own which sometimes even
>> | has a number of limited uses.
>> |
>> | I wonder!!!
>>
>> Yes. The case could be made that Microsoft has
>> broken the law by extorting multiple license payments
>> when someone buys a new PC or has to buy a new
>> disk. They claim software is intellectual property but
>> legally claim that it's licensed to an inanimate
>> object -- the motherboard! That's a trick on the level
>> of Saturday morning cartoons.
>
> Yet, here in New Zealand, I've succeeded in buying an installable copy
> of Windows XP on a CD for NZ$25. It was a backup for the copy
> installed on my machine from new. The CD came complete with
> instructions about how to install and unlock it if I ever needed to do
> so.
>
> I've also succeeded in transferring the license for my then current
> Windows XP from one machine (which had died) to a brand new
> replacement machine.
>
> Microsoft is beareaucratic but it is not mindlessly ruthless.
>>
>> It seems to be a simple case of companies like MS,
>> Adobe, etc. having more lawyers and lobbyists than
>> anyone who cares to oppose them. Also, they have a
>> valid claim in trying to prevent the spread of illegal
>> digital copies. So their claims have never been tested.
>> And they cleverly took a "passive aggressive" approach
>> that serves to mute the issue: Instead of legally enforcing
>> their claims they've rigged their software for limited
>> functionality. You buy a PC and get no disk anymore.
>> The OS installed is locked to a code in the BIOS. If you
>> try to copy it to a new PC it doesn't work. Then MS
>> threatens PC makers who dare to sell a PC without Windows.
>>
>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...9286228,00.htm
>>
>> That's a non-confrontive way of forcing you to
>> buy a software license with every PC or major
>> repair. (Not to single out MS.)
>>
>> | I have a favored vehicle, my Ford truck. I bought it but Ford owns the
>> | detail drawings of the design. The design drawings may not need to be
>> | patented but they surely can be considered as being Intellectual
>> | Property. Do you think there will come a day when I can neither trade,
>> | sell my truck, or give my truck to a family member because Ford owns the
>> | Intellectual Property rights?
>> |
>>
>> That's one of the issues being talked about in the
>> Supreme Court case: If intellectual property from
>> offshore sources can't be resold then the software
>> in foreign cars/trucks would qualify those for
>> protection. I have a Toyota pickup. I *love* the
>> quality (my last truck lasted 18 years and 239,000
>> miles), but Toyota is abusive to their customers.
>> They charge me the mechanic's markup if I buy parts
>>from them.
>
> That's called the retail price.
>
>> I have no doubt they'd charge me for the
>> right to resell if given the chance.
>
> You would actualy get a better 'trade' price.
>
>> The implication is that a lot of manufacturing might
>> then be moved offshore and products could be designed
>> to incorporate some kind of intellectual property.
>
> They don't have to "be designed to incorporate some kind of
> intellectual property". They alread do incorporate 'some kind of'
> intellectual property. It's called copyright.

Copyrights and intellectual property rights seem to be similar yet
different. I've been under the impression that intellectual property
covers creations of the mind that may not culminate in the physical
creation of what the mind has conceived. Copyrights are granted to cover
the ownership of the physical creation of what the mind has conceived.

Thinking about something and documenting what has been thought, then
either creating it or not creating it may be labeled as being
intellectual property. Thinking about something then creating it may be
covered by copyrights, which may, like patents, have a limited time of
ownership. Whereas, intellectual property ownership has no limited time
of ownership.

That has been my understanding of the difference between copyrights and
intellectual property rights.

Geeze, just thinking about that means ancestors of ancient Egyptians
(original creators of time control devices) who have documents to prove
time measuring devices were the inventions of their minds, which now may
be thought to be covered by intellectual property right laws, may sue
everyone in the world who owns a watch 'cause they own the rights to
their intellectual property.

How about them apples.

>
>> Something
>> similar has already occurred in a case of Costco vs Omega
>> watches, where the watch company put a small picture
>> on the back of their watches, called it intellectual property,
>> then sued Costco for reselling imported watches:
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi...cheap-watches/
>>
>> Apparently that case didn't set an official precedent,
>> though Omega won and the SC let that decision stand.
>> I suppose that if Wiley wins you'll probably be able to
>> still sell your Ford... for awhile. Public opinion and common
>> sense would have to be altered before you'd be blocked
>>from doing that. First it would start with resale of books
>> and DVDs being banned. Then maybe it would move
>> to hardware by Apple demanding control over the i* resale
>> market.... That doesn't seem so farfetched, given that
>> they already control much of how their products can be
>> used. It might be a few years before you'd have to
>> make a deal with an Authorized Ford Transfer Depot before
>> you're allowed to buy a new car.
>>

On 11/9/2012 2:27 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:42:37 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
> wrote:
> : On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:12:34 -0500, "Mayayana"
> : <> wrote:
> :
> : >| What the heck, we buy software which we don't own which sometimes even
> : >| has a number of limited uses.
> : >|
> : >| I wonder!!!
> : >
> : > Yes. The case could be made that Microsoft has broken the law by
> : >extorting multiple license payments when someone buys a new PC or
> : >has to buy a new disk. They claim software is intellectual property
> : >but legally claim that it's licensed to an inanimate object -- the
> : >motherboard! That's a trick on the level of Saturday morning cartoons.
> :
> : Yet, here in New Zealand, I've succeeded in buying an installable copy
> : of Windows XP on a CD for NZ$25. It was a backup for the copy installed
> : on my machine from new. The CD came complete with instructions about how
> : to install and unlock it if I ever needed to do so.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't sound like such a great deal to
> me. We bought a lot of Dell PCs and servers in the XP days, and each came with
> a re-installation CD that allowed you to rebuild the OS from scratch.
> Moreover, that CD would work on any Dell computer; and although it came with a
> product code, I can't recall ever being prompted for it. And I installed XP on
> a LOT of computers.
>
> Installation of the various versions of Windows Server 2003 worked pretty much
> the same way.
>
> Bob
>

Having a single Dell CD that repairs a licensed Microsoft system that
may be used on other Dell computers having the same licensed system as
an OEM product code may not be so unusual.

Many PC's came with CD's that repaired its original operating system.
However, not all manufactures provide the buyer with such a CD. I bought
my wife a laptop that didn't come with such a CD and I have Toshiba,
Fujitsu and Asus laptops that didn't come with such CD's. But they all
came with the capability to create system repair CD's.

If a system is upgraded to a newer system, the product code number
should be changed or the product relabeled to show a new product code
number.