It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)It's not DRM, problem solved?(119 posts)(119 posts)
(119 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
Orryyrro: Yes, they have to uphold all of them, which they currently aren't.

Also, it was a hypothetical situation, it is DRM because it restricts a legal right through digital means, in this case by tying them to an account.
avatar
crazy_dave: The legal right you quote were written for physical goods only, especially in the US, and GOG goes with the more restrictive copyright laws because it does not change its policies from country to country - their other policy is to treat all countries the same. Right of resell does not necessarily apply to digital goods that are copyable.
It goes for copyrighted material, you can't copyright physical goods, only works/ideas.
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: The legal right you quote were written for physical goods only, especially in the US, and GOG goes with the more restrictive copyright laws because it does not change its policies from country to country - their other policy is to treat all countries the same. Right of resell does not necessarily apply to digital goods that are copyable.
avatar
Orryyrro: It goes for copyrighted material, you can't copyright physical goods, only works/ideas.
We're talking about physical vs digital goods - copyright law is simply one method to protect the rights of the IP owner. You are buying a copy of a product for personal use. With a physical product transferring does not involve copying that physical good you simply hand it over - 1 copy is transferred with no duplication. With digital products, the transfer process is in fact a copy then delete process to ensure that the new copy was "transferred" by deletion of the original copy - there is an extra step. You have to duplicate then delete. Canada it seems assumes that the duplication process will be followed by the deletion. However, I find it perfectly reasonable to not assume that and allow for companies to ensure safeguards against "no deletion" during the transfer process so that the transfer process is akin to a physical good transfer. So for a right to resell they go with a DRM solution. For personal use only? DRM-free. Again, DRM-free does not mean right to resell.
Post edited April 13, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: Actually it's quite logical for GOG to be so concerned. For one, not every country has the same copyright laws of Canada and GOG has to comply with all of them. Secondly, uploading a game requires an active amount of dishonesty. Simply not destroying copies requires you to do ... nothing. You don't have to be actively dishonest. Could you put up a link to Canada's copyright law?
For one thing GOG wouldn't be advertising on piracy websites if at all opposed to piracy. So it is quite absurd for GOG to specifically forbid lawful actions. The fact is that there is no need for terms and conditions because—as you just said—every country already has it's own copyright act (the ultimate EULA.) And again, it sounds a lot like you are justifying assumed guilt. It is strange to me but the USers here seem to understand that it's okay to treat the innocent like criminals so maybe it's one of those cultural differences.

Anyway, here's our copyright act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/index.html

And here is a relevant section I recently posted in another thread. It covers format shifting, personal archives and transfer of ownership:
30.6 It is not an infringement of copyright in a computer program for a person who owns a copy of the computer program that is authorized by the owner of the copyright to

(a) make a single reproduction of the copy by adapting, modifying or converting the computer program or translating it into another computer language if the person proves that the reproduced copy is

(i) essential for the compatibility of the computer program with a particular computer,
(ii) solely for the person’s own use, and
(iii) destroyed immediately after the person ceases to be the owner of the copy; or

(b) make a single reproduction for backup purposes of the copy or of a reproduced copy referred to in paragraph (a) if the person proves that the reproduction for backup purposes is destroyed immediately when the person ceases to be the owner of the copy of the computer program.
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: We're talking about physical vs digital goods
And I'm saying there is no difference, books are not copyrighted, the words that make up a novel are, words are no more physical than digital media.
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
Orryyrro: Yes, they have to uphold all of them, which they currently aren't.

Also, it was a hypothetical situation, it is DRM because it restricts a legal right through digital means, in this case by tying them to an account.
Does Canadian law really prevent people from signing away their rights? In the US there are certain rights which one cannot sign away. Whether they like it or not they cannot sign a contract to be a slave. But one can sign away the right to sue if one chooses to do so.

Just because something is a right doesn't necessarily mean that one shouldn't be allowed to sign it away if one so chooses.
avatar
Darling_Jimmy: For one thing GOG wouldn't be advertising on piracy websites if at all opposed to piracy. So it is quite absurd for GOG to specifically forbid lawful actions. The fact is that there is no need for terms and conditions because—as you just said—every country already has it's own copyright act (the ultimate EULA.) And again, it sounds a lot like you are justifying assumed guilt. It is strange to me but the USers here seem to understand that it's okay to treat the innocent like criminals so maybe it's one of those cultural differences.
If you're referring to Abandonware sites, that's the norm. How else are the sites going to indicate where one can lawfully purchase the files?

Otherwise, it's likely that whomever it is that's handling the ad space hasn't told them precisely which sites they'd be advertised on.
Post edited April 13, 2011 by hedwards
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: We're talking about physical vs digital goods
avatar
Orryyrro: And I'm saying there is no difference, books are not copyrighted, the words that make up a novel are, words are no more physical than digital media.
In the era with only physical media, you had to actively copy before the transfer process in order to retain a copy. In other words, to get access to those words, you had to transfer a physical entity. The difference now lies in the way you are transferring the words. That's the key. When you only had physical media, the transfer is a one shot, not two shot process as it is with digital media. It is reasonable for a company to ensure it remains a one-shot process to keep things consist across media types.
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
Orryyrro: Yes, they have to uphold all of them, which they currently aren't.

Also, it was a hypothetical situation, it is DRM because it restricts a legal right through digital means, in this case by tying them to an account.
avatar
hedwards: Does Canadian law really prevent people from signing away their rights? In the US there are certain rights which one cannot sign away. Whether they like it or not they cannot sign a contract to be a slave. But one can sign away the right to sue if one chooses to do so.

Just because something is a right doesn't necessarily mean that one shouldn't be allowed to sign it away if one so chooses.
you can sign away certain rights in a legal and binding contract, however non-negotiable contracts don't exactly count as such.
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: We're talking about physical vs digital goods
avatar
Orryyrro: And I'm saying there is no difference, books are not copyrighted, the words that make up a novel are, words are no more physical than digital media.
In the US, they are indeed copyrighted as well. I'm starting to understand why we in the US contribute so much more IP to the world than Canada does.
avatar
Orryyrro: you can sign away certain rights in a legal and binding contract, however non-negotiable contracts don't exactly count as such.
How do you guys conduct business then? Granted we in the US go way overboard, but if you can't do one party contracts it seems like that would cripple the ability to do online business.
Post edited April 13, 2011 by hedwards
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: In the era with only physical media, you had to actively copy before the transfer process in order to retain a copy. In other words, to get access to those words, you had to transfer a physical entity. The difference now lies in the way you are transferring the words. That's the key. When you only had physical media, the transfer is a one shot, not two shot process as it is with digital media. It is reasonable for a company to ensure it remains a one-shot process to keep things consist across media types.
Keep in mind that our famous "it's totally legal to download music from the internet" ruling was based on a comparison to having photocopiers in libraries.
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
Darling_Jimmy: For one thing GOG wouldn't be advertising on piracy websites if at all opposed to piracy. So it is quite absurd for GOG to specifically forbid lawful actions. The fact is that there is no need for terms and conditions because—as you just said—every country already has it's own copyright act (the ultimate EULA.) And again, it sounds a lot like you are justifying assumed guilt. It is strange to me but the USers here seem to understand that it's okay to treat the innocent like criminals so maybe it's one of those cultural differences.

Anyway, here's our copyright act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/index.html

And here is a relevant section I recently posted in another thread. It covers format shifting, personal archives and transfer of ownership:
30.6 It is not an infringement of copyright in a computer program for a person who owns a copy of the computer program that is authorized by the owner of the copyright to

(a) make a single reproduction of the copy by adapting, modifying or converting the computer program or translating it into another computer language if the person proves that the reproduced copy is

(i) essential for the compatibility of the computer program with a particular computer,
(ii) solely for the person’s own use, and
(iii) destroyed immediately after the person ceases to be the owner of the copy; or

(b) make a single reproduction for backup purposes of the copy or of a reproduced copy referred to in paragraph (a) if the person proves that the reproduction for backup purposes is destroyed immediately when the person ceases to be the owner of the copy of the computer program.
avatar
Darling_Jimmy:
I think section (b) of (iii) is entirely relevant. Proving that all the copies were destroyed. That's not really an honor system and why they said the person has to prove they've destroyed the copies if they resell it.

This isn't an issue of piracy or abandonware, this is an issue of right to resell.
Post edited April 13, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
Orryyrro: And I'm saying there is no difference, books are not copyrighted, the words that make up a novel are, words are no more physical than digital media.
avatar
hedwards: In the US, they are indeed copyrighted as well. I'm starting to understand why we in the US contribute so much more IP to the world than Canada does.
No, books (the medium) are not copyrighted anywhere, at all. Same as compact discs are not copyrighted. Same as stone tablets aren't copyrighted. The intangible ideas are what are copyrighted.
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
Orryyrro: No, books (the medium) are not copyrighted anywhere, at all. Same as compact discs are not copyrighted. Same as stone tablets aren't copyrighted. The intangible ideas are what are copyrighted.
That's shallow and pedantic. Yes, the literal book isn't copyright, but you're ignoring the fact that the presentation in book for is subject to copyright as well. At least here in the US it is. Hence how you can have a train or a bus schedule that contains only materials not subject to copyright law which is itself subject to copyright protection.
Posted April 13, 2011
Unfortunately I got to get back to work. Nice debate though. :) Will check in later.
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: I think section (b) is entirely relevant. Proving that all the copies were destroyed. That's not really an honor system and why they said the person has to prove they've destroyed the copies if they resell it.
I'm glad you agree.


avatar
crazy_dave: This isn't an issue of piracy or abandonware, this is an issue of right to resell.
Correct. And which one should GOG really be concerned with?
Posted April 13, 2011
avatar
hedwards: How do you guys conduct business then? Granted we in the US go way overboard, but if you can't do one party contracts it seems like that would cripple the ability to do online business.
Except an EULA isn't a unilateral contract, they promise to provide the game and you promise not to do anything they say you can't. Online business is, the business promises to give [product] to anyone who pays them [amount], with no stipulations on what you do, only on what they do.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)It's not DRM, problem solved?(119 posts)(119 posts)
(119 posts)