The question is who missed the key points
Posted Sep 1, 2005 8:16 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller
In reply to: No community mandate
Parent article: On the defense of piracy enablers
By entering late into a discussion that already seemed closed, one always has the risk of saying something pointless because it's been addressed before. That may just have happened to Wol.
I acknowledged the difference in legal systems, also between author's rights and copyright, about a week ago. However, it's totally irrelevant to this case because Blizzard had expressly reserved the rights that I was talking about, through its EULAs and TOUs, and the courts found those agreements valid, enforceable and perfectly reasonable, while the EFF claimed that they constituted "copyright misuse". (And in that context, all of the questions that I raised come up: Does the copyright holder, because of a profit motive or for other reasons, impose too restrictive terms or is it in his right to do so?)
The thing is that if someone has a right, he has it, whether it's the constitution of the respective country, some other written law, case law or an agreement on the grounds of which he has that right.
Even the case with the German architect served the purpose for which I mentioned it. A U.S. architect may have to reserve that respective right under an agreement, but does it matter? I just said that if someone has that right and insists on it, those who want to modify his work have to rebuild something new (if they can).
As for the U.S. Constitution, I've previously explained that it's the constitution of a free market economy and not of a communist state. Consequently, the progress of science and the useful arts must always be viewed against the background of a free market economy. You won't find judges today that believe people, let alone companies, only contribute to science and the useful arts on a pro bono basis. The profit motive is clearly viewed by politicians and judges as key to the progress of science and the useful arts. That doesn't mean to say that there would be no progress without commercial ambitions, but the general line of thought is that in some areas there'd be a lot less progress. Consequently, no one has to change the U.S. Constitution.
to post comments)