| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Except that "running a program" isn't copyright infringment.Except that "running a program" isn't copyright infringment.Posted May 11, 2008 1:32 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: Except that "running a program" isn't copyright infringment. by dvdeug Parent article: Blizzard tests the reach of copyright law
When do most people clearly buy a license and borrow the media? It doesn't really matter what most people do. If anyone does it, or a judge believes anyone would and call it "purchasing a copy," then the fact that someone used the phrase "I want to purchase a copy" doesn't preclude that kind of transaction. But it does happen. In some areas of the software industry, it is the normal way to buy software. It's also normal in some other parts of the copyright industry. It's how theaters buy movies.
Unless you don't mind that your grocery store is only selling you a license to its fruit, one that may not include you eating it or taking it from the store. Unlike fruit, a CD is something you can get a lot of value out of even if you don't own it. So while it's highly unlikely someone in a fruit purchase didn't intend to own it, it's entirely reasonable for a person to buy the ability to install WoW and not buy the CD that it comes on. I'd do it if that's what the store was offering.
(Log in to post comments)
Except that "running a program" isn't copyright infringment. Posted May 11, 2008 13:07 UTC (Sun) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] So if anyone might do it, you might be doing it without knowing it? That's fraudulent; the whole essence of a valid contract is that both sides have a meeting of minds on what the contract means. Theaters don't buy films this way. I can't believe any business person would stay in business if they paid good money for a film before reading the contract, and then realized they couldn't show it because they didn't have Dolby THX Surround X or whatever. (Maybe Paramount will send them a check in a few months, minus shipping fees, after they've returned the film.) I don't think anyone buys software and signs a contract for it; they know the difference between buying software and licensing software. You can get a lot of value out of a fruit if you don't own it. Maybe the license just says you can't resell it, or publicly display it, or make it into fruit salad. Is it all right to live in that world?
Except that "running a program" isn't copyright infringment. Posted May 11, 2008 17:48 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] So if anyone might do it, you might be doing it without knowing it? No, if anyone might do it, you might be doing it knowingly. So one might conclude based on other evidence that you are in fact doing it. That's fraudulent; Fraud is intentionally misleading someone for one's own gain. So far, none of the scenarios I've talked about involve someone tricking the WoW customer. They involve misundertandings and differences of opinion. the whole essence of a valid contract is that both sides have a meeting of minds on what the contract means. That's the point I've been trying to make. If the WoW customer reasonably believed he was buying a copy and the shopkeeper reasonably believed he was selling only a copyright license, there is no contract. In that case, the customer has to give back the CD. So the only question was whether a shopkeeper could reasonably believe the customer wanted a copyright license without a copy. The fact that it's a reasonable thing to buy and others buy similar things argues in favor of that. Theaters don't buy films this way [reading the full contract after the initial transaction].Agreed; that isn't the "this" I meant. I meant a theater owner buys a copyright license, and takes possession of a copy, but does not buy the copy.
|
|
||||||||||||