49 Replies - 10374 Views - Last Post: 08 February 2011 - 08:51 AM
Re: Price of keys...
Posted 07 February 2011 - 11:43 PM
Ok sorry for the late resonse, i completely forgot i commented in this thread... This is basically in response to lordofduct's epic post
1) If a law specifies anything at all you have two options, love it and lump it or second vote and make motions for ammendment to the said law. If a law favours a company it is because legislators have designed it that way. We have many such laws here, i sight the major corporations which is basically who runs your country. Don't like it, go into politics and challenge the laws or create a movement to assess these laws and make changes to change who they inherently favour.
2) In a civil case evidence is also to be collected to present. Documents in this case contained on digital media (such as email) can and should be collected to present in open court. If in a civil case where a machine has failed causing damage to life or property that machine should and is able to be ceased to become part of evidence in a case of compensation which is not a criminal matter in most case unless of course there is criminal neglegence. An example of such may be a person charged for drink driving, unroadworthy vehicle, then that vehicle may be required for examination to further the case for criminal convictions. This also flows over into compensation which is not always a criminal matter.
3) Yep the same things happens here on Kangaroo Island (funny there is a place called that also). In that case the laws are created by the states and pertain to the relevant traffic authority of that state. For whatever reason they are different, perhaps one state has more population and more roads, with varying levels of road safety.
On the public terrain one must adhere to the laws. Now i think back to some cases in the news where people were charged for burnouts on private land because the smoke affected private properties nearby. So i get the point you are making about private property and ones rights to do within reason as they wish on that land. Consider the fact the internet is also public property; subsequently the same applies on digital devices connected. One can do as they wish on their computer. Install whatever software they like at their own peril, if that software for instance malware then goes out and affects other users on that public domain then the public and private become conjoined and repercussions are inevitable.
As for the example of motor parks (raceways), those are venues created and approved by the relevant government authorities. They are set aside to operate for a specific purpose and are to adhere to the rules set down or present when approval was granted. The fact you can use jet fuel is one thing, however if you drive dangerously or breach the rules of the organisation ( authority ) charged with maintaing the facility and operating it within the applicable laws then you will find yourself in court. They may engage authorities such as the police or as part of your agreement upon entrace they may cease your vehicle to use as evidence to both limit their liablities by placing it back on you; arguing that you were in breach of their set of criterion, or they may wish to retain it as evidence to show it was an accident and defend you against some other party making a claim. This is where the public private intermix and in the end there is always a crossover area between them. This is further reiterated by the fact that certain authorities such as the Formula 1 body can impose restrictions of use and operation and if these are not met they can take action to fine teams and impose further restrictions are as said 'ban' a party from partaking in the activity. This is in parallel with Sony and its restrictions on the use. You may buy a license to use a product. That is a license, if you breach that license then they can and will stop you from using the device. Same as if you breach a race leagues license of use they can and will stop you.
4) I agree there is a degree of shady business. How many people read the license of software they install ? Not many i am sure. None the less it is provided at some point and you have a choice of not accepting the license should you not agree with what it states. Devices such as PS3's should contain or make available at the site of purchase a full copy of the license conditions. These license details are available upon request and that is enough. As i mentioned earlier, many people know they will buy the device and accept what it is to be used for and not care for what other possible purposes it may be used for. Subsequently if you are a user interested in how you can go about modifying the device in anyway or reverse engineering it then it is irresponsible not to get good legal advice on what you can do. If you are not happy with the restrictions then either forgo modifying or reversing it or do so with full awareness of the consequences. If you are a pioneer and wish to see the ability to modify or reverse this technology then do so through the legislative channels or seek an approval from the license holder in writing to do what it is you wish to. If they fail to grant it then go through the courts and get the court to approve it by challenging the laws of your country and the validity of the license agreement.
5) Exactly you do not own the device, well in part you do. You own the physical device however you do not own the right to modify the software on the device. That is undoubtably the contract. Ownership comes in two parts. You may own a car however you cannot modify the cars onboard computer chip. You can use the housing ( chassis ) however you cannot modify the software.
For the rest of it i will revisit it when i have some time. I sit on the side that wishes one could act freely in this way however i do respect the law of my country, my agreement in contract and most importantly the right for a company to derive a lively hood and retain ownership on how its product is to be used, only in the digital and software world.
Re: Price of keys...
Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:02 AM
2) If anything is subpoenaed for a civil suit it is NOT turned over to the plaintiff, it is turned over to the courts. And ANY subpoena can be contended by the person being served. If I'm subpoenaed for my person or my property, I have all the right to not submit, and instead file a counter to explain why I feel I shouldn't. This is the big difference between criminal and civil suits when it comes to evidence.
3) The law that this guy supposedly broke is in the gray area. It isn't a criminal law, and it is a highly contended civil legislation. And my point is I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. I'm not denying that there is some stupid fucking law that is being used... I'm saying it's a stupid fucking law.
Oh and you completely missed the point about the raceways.
sort of... you forget, its the owner of the track setting up the rules (not the goverment). And yeah, it's his property, he allowed you on it to do something... if you break his rules, he can kick you off HIS property. If you cause damages the owner can sue you.
Now say its MY property... then it's my rules. There are only a few overhanging government regulations and liability... like in cases of death.
Not all rules are government sanctioned, and not all rules come with government backed consequences.
4) Actually no, the fact these licenses are only available at request isn't enough. People aren't informed there is even a license. They are being bound to a contract with NO KNOWLEDGE of it. In the USA, that is not a legal contract. For a contract to be legal, BOTH PARTIES MUST BE INFORMED.
Say I lent you 100 dollars, you said you'd pay me back in a week. A week passes, you show up, and you hand me 100 dollars. I say, "oh I'm sorry, you owe me 300 dollars. And if you don't pay me I'm going to sue you. This contract here says that I can, there is a 200% interest on the loan, and by taking the loan you agreed to this contract. Sorry you didn't know this, if you had asked, I would have shown you the contract. But you never asked to see it. Oh I know, you didn't know it existed, so you didn't know to ask, but hey... that's life!?"
5) You missed the disconnect. I CAN modify my hardware. I can take apart my cable box that I own (if you rent your cable box, you can't, you rent it). I can modify the cable box I own. I can do whatever the fuck I want to it. I just can't connect it to my cable providers network if I've modified it.
If Sony wanted to say "modded PS3 firmwares can not connect to PSNetwork"... ok, that's their network. But this is my hardware! I paid for it.
Oh and uhh, yes actually I can modify the computer of the car. Their source code itself may be copyrighted, but keep in mind Hotz didn't modify Sony code. He wrote his own code that worked in conjunction with the PS3. And many people do that with the computers in their cars... it's not street legal, but it's not illegal.
I love your last line:
Because Sony, and the 'digital and software world' deserves special privileges the rest don't get?
Tell me, how doesn't the copyright laws surrounding say 'literature', the very thing copyright was invented for, not work for software? Why should software get special right books don't? I can easily copy a book... it's just text. I can easily steal the words of any author, slightly alter them, and pawn them off as if they were my own. It's called plagiarism. And copyright has effectively protected authors and publishers from it for centuries.
Thing is really, copyright isn't meant to be some lock and key stopping the end-user from doing what he pleases with such material. It was intended to protect the notoriety of the creator. So that no one else could claim it as there own. But as soon as you sold me your book, painting, or whatever... that copy became mine. I can burn my books, I can translate them to German or braille, I can act them out in a play for my mummy, or deconstruct and write a thesis about the themes of the text for a college degree.
Yet big ol' Sony needs more protection... po' Sony.
This post has been edited by lordofduct: 08 February 2011 - 12:43 AM
Re: Price of keys...
Posted 08 February 2011 - 08:51 AM
1) deal with the law, or vote against it.
2) In a civil case evidence can be requested.
3) A lot of weird...
4) Shady business sucks, but you should put up with it, they let you buy their stuff. They shouldn't be required to inform you directly about any contracts. And you shouldn't be allowed to dismantle products you purchase.
5) A complete misrepresentation of my analogy about cable labs.
1) I can't vote against the DMCA because it was never publicly voted on. Voting is not our only form of 'voice', our actual 'voice' is.
2) An explanation that subpoenaed evidence in a civil case is turned over to the courts, not the plaintiff.
3) A retort to the lot of weird. Explaining that rules on private properties aren't necessarily backed by the government.
4) An explanation why a company who doesn't actively inform its customers of a contract that the contract is technically not valid because all legal contracts are only binding if both parties are informed.
5) A reassertion of my cable labs analogy
I love your last line...) Me asking why software should get special copyright privileges that are not afforded to other mediums.
This post has been edited by lordofduct: 08 February 2011 - 08:52 AM