«

| >
| > The EU recently confirmed First Sale Doctrine for software.
| >In the US it's up in the air. The law says you have the rights
| >of First Sale, but some software companies have won in
| >cases where they've claimed that the software is licensed
| >and not sold. That's an example of what I would call cheating
| >the law. No one would get away with "licensing" a book to
| >skirt FSD, but digital media are a new issue that's not really
| >settled. Software companies have a genuine concern, but
| >that's no excuse for cheating their customers out of the
| >product they've bought. The EU judgement concurs:
|
| I've been 'buying' and using software for a hell of a long time. I
| can't think of any software where I have actually bought it. I've
| always licensed it.

Why so coy? Are you trying to say that you believe
the idea of licensing software to prevent FSD rights
is a valid practice? You have every right to keep buying
licenses over and over. And if you're lucky enough to
live in the US then the law won't prevent you from
doing that.

On 11/15/2012 10:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:


<snip>

>
> Have a look at what happens to countries which don't have governments.
> Even the worst government is better than none.
>

We first have to define "country."

However, without getting into technical distinctions, groups of people
with "no government" become tribal societies. The tribe then becomes the
governmental equivalent.
Therefore, it can be argued that there is no such thing as a society
without government.

--
Peter

On 11/15/2012 10:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:46:16 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper writes:
>>
>>> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.
>>
>> It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
>> software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
>> engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
>> of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.
>
> Of course. That's why people go into business and start corporations.
> If you had the smarts, you'd do the same thing. If you don't have the
> smarts, you work for someone else and they make the money.
>

I's not only a matter of smarts. One must have some reasonable amount of
business sense as well. There are many brilliant individuals, who work
for an organization. For one reason or another, they prefer not to be in
their own business. They are simply not entrepreneurs.


--
Peter

On 11/15/2012 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:06:22 -0500, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/2012 8:46 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> tony cooper writes:
>>>
>>>> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.
>>>
>>> It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
>>> software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
>>> engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
>>> of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.
>>>
>>
>> Whoosh!
>
> I'm glad someone "got it".
>
>

I thought it pretty obvious.

--
Peter

On Friday, November 16, 2012 3:36:03 PM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-11-16 02:25:59 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>
>
>
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 2012-11-15 20:09:17 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:57:27 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>> Um, I know a number of people who have had to give up writing as their
>
> >>>>>> career because the changes in the market have dropped their incomes
>
> >>>>>> drastically.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Which changes are those?
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> E-books are on the rise, and they have much tighter controls on distribution
>
> >>>>> than books on paper. You can give a paper book away, or you can sell it, and
>
> >>>>> you can keep it forever. Not so for e-books.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> The terms under which you buy e-books are quite different from those
>
> >>>> which apply to paper:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.No part of this work covered by the copyright
>
> >>>> herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form
>
> >>>> or by any means ... "
>
> >
>
> > Take note of that statement, and the *specifics* of what it says.
>
>
>
> I did, and that was the reason I added the Westview Press notification below.
>
>
>
> >>> Or maybe that isn't actually what they put in any book?
>
> >
>
> > And then look at what it actually is they put into a book:
>
>
>
> That is the reason I took the time to type it.
>
>
>
> >> All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
>
> >> reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
>
> >> electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,
>
> >> recording, or any information storage and retrieval
>
> >> system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
>
> >>
>
> >> I think that pretty much spells out what they had in mind to cover their butts.
>
> >
>
> > Maybe the distinction between the nonsense that Eric posted
>
> > and the actual statement as above is lost on you,
>
>
>
> I know you don't particularly like me, but that was an assumption on your part.
>
>
>
> > but a
>
> > careful reading of the two shows they have an entirely
>
> > different legal meaning.
>
>
>
> No doubt. However Eric might well have posted what was available
>
> regarding publisher statements in the e-book, considering that the
>
> Random House e-book I checked was quite vague. So I have a feeling the
>
> download sites, be it iTunes, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or the
>
> publisher's site, is going to be a tad more specific in that rolling
>
> screen of TOS agreements that the majority never read, but blindly
>
> click on the "I Agree" button.

Yep, and can you blame them with some being over 20,000 words that's longer than a lot of novels, cetanly longer than any I've read IIRC.
It's not like those that write them read them


>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Savageduck

On 11/15/2012 10:25 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> | > ?? Everyone is allowed to loan or sell books, records,
> | > DVDs as much as they like.
> |
> | Not software.
> |
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
>
> The EU recently confirmed First Sale Doctrine for software.
> In the US it's up in the air. The law says you have the rights
> of First Sale, but some software companies have won in
> cases where they've claimed that the software is licensed
> and not sold. That's an example of what I would call cheating
> the law. No one would get away with "licensing" a book to
> skirt FSD, but digital media are a new issue that's not really
> settled. Software companies have a genuine concern, but
> that's no excuse for cheating their customers out of the
> product they've bought. The EU judgement concurs:
>
> " it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital
> good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first-sale
> doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an
> unlimited amount of time, ..."
>
> "The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use
> the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical
> difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to
> authorizing resale..."
>
> In the American corporatocracy we probably can't hope
> for such civilized judgements. The only choice is to refuse
> to enter into such deals, but that's difficult when nearly
> all sources of digital media are running the same scam.
> One would have to give up products from Microsoft and Apple,
> as well as ebooks and digital music. Personally I've never
> considered buying from the latter 3 categories, and
> I don't buy anything more than absolutely necessary from
> Microsoft. But most people haven't even thought about
> this issue, much less resolved to hold out for a fair deal.
> It's hard to lay all blame on the snake oil salesman when
> his income derives from people willingly fooling themselves.
>
>

Absent some express provision to the contrary, purchase of a book is a
purchase of a limited right to the contents of that book. While I may
freely sell, or lend the book, generally, I may not resell copies of the
contents of that book. similarly, if I purchase sheet music, I may not
make extra copies for simultaneous use by others. I may lend or sell you
my copy of the sheet music, but if I do so, I may not retain a copy.
Also, in most cases, I may have limits on my public performance of the
music.
When they sing Happy Birthday to you, in a public place, a royalty
should be paid. ASCAP has a formula for computing the royalty. I do not
know the formula.

--
Peter

On 11/15/2012 10:33 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> | > Yup. Except that they aren't always cheating the law. Sometimes they
> have
> | > bribed legislators into changing the law in their favor.
> | >
> |
> | If you have evidence of such bribery, you have a moral obligation to
> | bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
> |
>
> That's quaint. Lobbying *is* bribery. And it's perfectly
> legal. What authorities are you going to report to?
>
>

It's obvious that you have little understanding of the regulatory
process, under which governmental regulations should be designed to work
with business, not stifle it. There is a balance between public good
and business that must be struck during the regulatory process. Yes, it
is, and can be abused. Rockefeller, Morgan and Carnegie, bought
McKinley. He was assassinated and Teddy Roosevelt became their worst
nightmare. Those matters have a way of running in cycles, due to our
very human tendency to abuse.

--
Peter

On 11/15/2012 11:09 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:57:27 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>>>
>>>> Um, I know a number of people who have had to give up writing as their
>>>> career because the changes in the market have dropped their incomes
>>>> drastically.
>>>
>>> Which changes are those?
>>>
>>> E-books are on the rise, and they have much tighter controls on distribution
>>> than books on paper. You can give a paper book away, or you can sell it, and
>>> you can keep it forever. Not so for e-books.
>>
>> The terms under which you buy e-books are quite different from those
>> which apply to paper:
>>
>> "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.No part of this work covered by the copyright
>> herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form
>> or by any means ... "
>>
>> Words to more or less that effect may be found in almost any paper
>> book you buy.
>
> So you can't put your book on a shelf for storage? And you can't
> read it either?
>
> Or maybe that isn't actually what they put in any book?
>

Your "point" has as much relevance to those words as if I interpret the
language "..may not be disassembled....' as meaning I am prohibited from
crunching the disk the software came on.
Comon Floyd, you know better than interpreting the word "stored," as
meaning you can't put it on a shelf.

--
Peter

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:47:28 -0500, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 11/15/2012 10:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:46:16 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper writes:
>>>
>>>> Maybe software engineers are not capable of blowing their own horn.
>>>
>>> It's more likely that such huge sums of money are involved in software that
>>> software companies are prepared to go to any lengths to prevent software
>>> engineers from having any rights to what they create. The greater the amount
>>> of money involved, the harder corporations try to keep it for themselves.
>>
>> Of course. That's why people go into business and start corporations.
>> If you had the smarts, you'd do the same thing. If you don't have the
>> smarts, you work for someone else and they make the money.
>>
>
>I's not only a matter of smarts. One must have some reasonable amount of
>business sense as well. There are many brilliant individuals, who work
>for an organization. For one reason or another, they prefer not to be in
>their own business. They are simply not entrepreneurs.

I include business sense under the general umbrella of "smarts". It
is just one of the things people can be smart about.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Mxsmanic <> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
>> Um, I know a number of people who have had to give up writing as their
>> career because the changes in the market have dropped their incomes
>> drastically.
>
> Which changes are those?
>
> E-books are on the rise, and they have much tighter controls on distribution
> than books on paper. You can give a paper book away, or you can sell it, and
> you can keep it forever. Not so for e-books.

Distribution controlled by a smaller and smaller number of companies,
mostly. First the consolidation of the Independent Distributor system,
now the big move to ebooks mostly through Amazon.

I can do all those things with every ebook I have, and for all but I
think three that's without my even having to break DRM first (Baen books
and TOR sell their books without DRM).

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info