Canada joins 21st century

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Nov 9, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Usenet Account, Nov 9, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    nick c Guest

    On 11/8/2012 5:02 PM, RichA wrote:
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/08/canadian-photographers-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.
     
    nick c, Nov 9, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | 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/2012/10/a-supreme-court-clash-could-change-what-ownership-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.)
     
    Mayayana, Nov 9, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    nick c Guest

    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/2012/10/a-supreme-court-clash-could-change-what-ownership-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? :)
     
    nick c, Nov 9, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | 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/0,1000000091,39286228,00.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/danielf...-omega-is-about-much-more-than-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. :)
     
    Mayayana, Nov 9, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    nick c Guest

    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/0,1000000091,39286228,00.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/danielf...-omega-is-about-much-more-than-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.
     
    nick c, Nov 9, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    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
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 9, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    nick c Guest

    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/0,1000000091,39286228,00.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/danielf...-omega-is-about-much-more-than-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. :)
    >>
     
    nick c, Nov 9, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    nick c Guest

    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.
     
    nick c, Nov 9, 2012
    #10
  11. nick c <> writes:

    > Copyrights and intellectual property rights seem to be similar yet
    > different.


    Specifically, copyright law is a subset of intellectual property law.
    Intellectual property is a broader category that includes trademarks,
    servicemarks, and patents, as well as copyrights.

    > 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.


    No; copyright is one of the less "physical" of the intellectual property
    regimes, because it's not the book that's protected, it's the series of
    words recorded in the book.

    > 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.


    Thinking about something and then creating it is the classic patent
    scenario -- "inventions". Figuring out a way to express something and
    fixing it in tangible form (photograhy, writing, music) is the domain of
    copyright. Then trademarks exist to protect corporate names, brand
    names, product names, and such.

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


    My knowledge is largely American; but the general division into
    categories is roughly correct world-wide I believe.
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 9, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    nick c Guest

    On 11/9/2012 3:36 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > nick c <> writes:
    >
    >> Copyrights and intellectual property rights seem to be similar yet
    >> different.

    >
    > Specifically, copyright law is a subset of intellectual property law.
    > Intellectual property is a broader category that includes trademarks,
    > servicemarks, and patents, as well as copyrights.
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > No; copyright is one of the less "physical" of the intellectual property
    > regimes, because it's not the book that's protected, it's the series of
    > words recorded in the book.


    At one time I designed a concept of metal seal to be used in a vacuum
    environment. NASA rejected the design in favor of another readily
    available metal seal. Later it was learned that another company had
    manufactured a seal that looked like the seal I had conceived and
    intended to use in a life support system. The company I worked for
    stopped the manufacturing of that seal 'cause it was thought to be
    covered by the intellectual property law although I never actually
    manufactured the seal nor tested it.

    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Thinking about something and then creating it is the classic patent
    > scenario -- "inventions". Figuring out a way to express something and
    > fixing it in tangible form (photograhy, writing, music) is the domain of
    > copyright. Then trademarks exist to protect corporate names, brand
    > names, product names, and such.
    >
    >> That has been my understanding of the difference between copyrights
    >> and intellectual property rights.

    >
    > My knowledge is largely American; but the general division into
    > categories is roughly correct world-wide I believe.
    >


    Just think, I went through life without studying law and I survived. :)
     
    nick c, Nov 10, 2012
    #12
  13. nick c <> writes:

    > On 11/9/2012 3:36 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> nick c <> writes:
    >>
    >>> Copyrights and intellectual property rights seem to be similar yet
    >>> different.

    >>
    >> Specifically, copyright law is a subset of intellectual property law.
    >> Intellectual property is a broader category that includes trademarks,
    >> servicemarks, and patents, as well as copyrights.
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> No; copyright is one of the less "physical" of the intellectual property
    >> regimes, because it's not the book that's protected, it's the series of
    >> words recorded in the book.

    >
    > At one time I designed a concept of metal seal to be used in a vacuum
    > environment. NASA rejected the design in favor of another readily
    > available metal seal. Later it was learned that another company had
    > manufactured a seal that looked like the seal I had conceived and
    > intended to use in a life support system. The company I worked for
    > stopped the manufacturing of that seal 'cause it was thought to be
    > covered by the intellectual property law although I never actually
    > manufactured the seal nor tested it.


    Our patent law is pretty screwed up, in that date of filing doesn't
    matter much and records of invention do; I strongly suspect they were
    basically threatening to file for a patent based on your work. However,
    this is a highly technical area and i'm *not* an expert in it, so don't
    take me too seriously. I do think I have the general outlines of the
    territories, and their names, reasonably correct, but the details get
    arcane *really* fast.

    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> Thinking about something and then creating it is the classic patent
    >> scenario -- "inventions". Figuring out a way to express something and
    >> fixing it in tangible form (photograhy, writing, music) is the domain of
    >> copyright. Then trademarks exist to protect corporate names, brand
    >> names, product names, and such.
    >>
    >>> That has been my understanding of the difference between copyrights
    >>> and intellectual property rights.

    >>
    >> My knowledge is largely American; but the general division into
    >> categories is roughly correct world-wide I believe.
    >>

    >
    > Just think, I went through life without studying law and I survived. :)


    So far, anyway :).

    Me too.
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 10, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:16:49 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:
    : On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:27:19 -0500, 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.
    :
    : What you got was probably a 'ghost' image. What I got was an
    : installable OS.

    No, it was a fully installable OS. Its only limitation was that it would
    install only on Dell machines.

    Also included was a separate CD with various drivers and utilities. That one
    tended to be a bit more model-specific; but if you were careful and knew what
    you were doing, you could find all that stuff on Dell's Web site.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 10, 2012
    #14
  15. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:45:25 -0800, nick c <> wrote:
    : 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/0,1000000091,39286228,00.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.

    How about them? One of my ancestors planted the first apple tree, and even now
    my lawyers are figuring out how to soak you hapless yokels who imagine that
    you have the right to pick and eat them.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 10, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    nick c Guest

    On 11/9/2012 9:11 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > nick c <> writes:
    >
    >> On 11/9/2012 3:36 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>> nick c <> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Copyrights and intellectual property rights seem to be similar yet
    >>>> different.
    >>>
    >>> Specifically, copyright law is a subset of intellectual property law.
    >>> Intellectual property is a broader category that includes trademarks,
    >>> servicemarks, and patents, as well as copyrights.
    >>>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> No; copyright is one of the less "physical" of the intellectual property
    >>> regimes, because it's not the book that's protected, it's the series of
    >>> words recorded in the book.

    >>
    >> At one time I designed a concept of metal seal to be used in a vacuum
    >> environment. NASA rejected the design in favor of another readily
    >> available metal seal. Later it was learned that another company had
    >> manufactured a seal that looked like the seal I had conceived and
    >> intended to use in a life support system. The company I worked for
    >> stopped the manufacturing of that seal 'cause it was thought to be
    >> covered by the intellectual property law although I never actually
    >> manufactured the seal nor tested it.

    >
    > Our patent law is pretty screwed up, in that date of filing doesn't
    > matter much and records of invention do; I strongly suspect they were
    > basically threatening to file for a patent based on your work. However,
    > this is a highly technical area and i'm *not* an expert in it, so don't
    > take me too seriously. I do think I have the general outlines of the
    > territories, and their names, reasonably correct, but the details get
    > arcane *really* fast.


    Thank for you conversational input, David. There's not much I know about
    the legal system in matters such as I've provided. "It's not my job" as
    the saying goes. :)

    >
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Thinking about something and then creating it is the classic patent
    >>> scenario -- "inventions". Figuring out a way to express something and
    >>> fixing it in tangible form (photograhy, writing, music) is the domain of
    >>> copyright. Then trademarks exist to protect corporate names, brand
    >>> names, product names, and such.
    >>>
    >>>> That has been my understanding of the difference between copyrights
    >>>> and intellectual property rights.
    >>>
    >>> My knowledge is largely American; but the general division into
    >>> categories is roughly correct world-wide I believe.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Just think, I went through life without studying law and I survived. :)

    >
    > So far, anyway :).
    >
    > Me too.
    >
     
    nick c, Nov 10, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Friday, November 9, 2012 10:31:17 PM UTC, 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


    I have heard that before.

    Our IT guys says installing Windows on any Dell computer is dead easy, when the the install program checks the motherboard and sees is a Dell it skips all license checks.

    Makes sense, Dell is charging for Windows on all products.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Nov 10, 2012
    #17
  18. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | : What you got was probably a 'ghost' image. What I got was an
    | : installable OS.
    |
    | No, it was a fully installable OS. Its only limitation was that it would
    | install only on Dell machines.

    Dell does that, but it's designed to work like
    a disk image. Companies typically install
    a restore partition on the PC, with option to buy
    a CD, as you did. Some are restore CDs. Some are
    a copy of Windows. But it boils down to the same
    thing. One can install any backup --
    onboard disk image or CD -- to a matching
    motherboard, but Microsoft has done their best
    to prevent being able to use any OEM copy
    of Windows on a different PC, or on the same PC
    with a new motherboard. So the fact that you have
    a "real Windows CD", and had to pay an extra 20%
    of the cost of the original license for it, is "cold
    comfort".

    Previously, one received an actual Windows
    CD with no restrictions. In other words, Microsoft
    had originally respected the fact that people were
    paying for a copy of Windows when they bought
    a PC.

    Even more awkward for Microsoft is that there's
    really no such thing as a PC. They're just assemblies
    of several components, from different companies,
    that the PC company puts into their own case and
    resells. The copy of Windows is just one item. The
    motherboard is another. Microsoft makes the bizarre
    legal claim that the copy of Windows is tied to the
    motherboard. It's an understandable way to attempt
    rendering the Windows copy as a distinct object, like
    a book, in order to stop illegal copying, but it cheats
    the buyer because they have a right to use a single
    installation of that copy of Windows as long as they
    like, or to give it away, or to sell it -- at least
    under US law.

    I think it would be fair to characterize the digital
    dilemma as one where lots of people on both sides
    are trying to exploit the problem: File sharers pretend
    that digital data is free for the taking. Software
    companies and Hollywood honchos see a chance to
    take away any rights from the customer by restricting
    access to purchased material and, now, by trying to
    charge for use, with no option to own a copy at all.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 10, 2012
    #18
  19. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/10/2012 8:50 AM, Mayayana wrote:


    <snip>

    >
    > I think it would be fair to characterize the digital
    > dilemma as one where lots of people on both sides
    > are trying to exploit the problem: File sharers pretend
    > that digital data is free for the taking. Software
    > companies and Hollywood honchos see a chance to
    > take away any rights from the customer by restricting
    > access to purchased material and, now, by trying to
    > charge for use, with no option to own a copy at all.
    >
    >


    I think Adobe as a reasonable compromise. I am permitted to have two
    installs. If I want to transfer to another machine, I deactivate and
    install on my new machine. In the event of a HD crash, I called a
    special number, explained what happened, and I was then able to activate.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 10, 2012
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. woo

    Slavery is back in 21st century USA

    woo, Nov 28, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
  2. woo

    Re: Slavery is back in 21st century USA

    woo, Nov 28, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    452
  3. woo

    Re: Slavery is back in 21st century USA

    woo, Nov 28, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
  4. philo

    the 21st century

    philo, Jun 17, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    747
    Spuds
    Jun 19, 2006
  5. philo

    New Ideas for the 21st Century Marriage

    philo, Dec 6, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    666
    wisdomkiller & pain
    Dec 9, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page